Cardiology News

Studies have shown links between statin use and type 2 diabetes (T2D) for more than a decade. A U.S. Food and Drug Administration label change for the drugs warned in 2012 about reports of increased risks of high blood glucose and glycosylated hemoglobin (A1c) levels. However, in the same warning, the FDA said it “continues to believe that the cardiovascular benefits of statins outweigh these small increased risks.”

Indeed, although the warning triggered much discussion at the time and a number of meta-analyses and other observational studies in more recent years, that conclusion seems to hold among clinicians and society guidelines.

For example, in a recent practice pointer on the risk of diabetes with statins published in the BMJ, Ishak Mansi, MD, of the Orlando VA Health Care System, and colleagues write, “This potential adverse effect of diabetes with statin use should not be a barrier to starting statin treatment when indicated.”

They also called for further research to answer such questions as, “Is statin-associated diabetes reversible upon statin discontinuation? Would intermittent use minimize this risk while maintaining cardiovascular benefits?”

An earlier study among individuals at high risk for diabetes found significantly higher rates of incident diabetes at 10 years among patients on placebo, metformin, or lifestyle intervention who also initiated statin therapy. Jill Crandall, MD, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, New York, and colleagues conclude, “For individual patients, a potential modest increase in diabetes risk clearly needs to be balanced against the consistent and highly significant reductions in myocardial infarction, stroke, and cardiovascular death associated with statin treatment.”

In the same vein, a recent review by Byron Hoogwerf, MD, Emeritus, department of endocrinology, diabetes, and metabolism, Cleveland Clinic, is titled, “Statins may increase diabetes, but benefit still outweighs risk.”
 

Rosuvastatin versus Atorvastatin

The latest study in this arena is an analysis of the LODESTAR randomized controlled trial of 4,400 patients with coronary artery disease in 12 hospitals in Korea which compares the risks associated with individual statins.

Senior author Myeong-Ki Hong, MD, PhD, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Severance Cardiovascular Hospital, Seoul, South Korea, said in an interview that the study was prompted by the “limited” studies evaluating clinical outcomes, including diabetes risk, according to statin type.

Dr. Hong and colleagues compared the risk of developing diabetes among those taking rosuvastatin (mean daily dose, 17.1 mg) or atorvastatin (mean daily dose 36 mg) for 3 years. While both statins effectively prevented myocardial infarction, stroke, and death, those taking rosuvastatin had a higher incidence of new-onset T2D requiring initiation of antidiabetic drugs (7.2% vs. 5.3%; hazard ratio, 1.39) and cataract surgery (2.5% vs. 1.5%; HR, 1.66).

Overall, the HR of new-onset T2D was 1.29 (95% confidence interval, 1.01-1.63; P = .04).

“The percentages of new-onset diabetes and cataract are in line with previous studies regarding statin therapy in patients with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease,” Dr. Hong said. “Additional research specifically focusing on these outcomes is required, with more frequent measurement of glucose and A1c levels to detect new-onset diabetes and regular ophthalmologic examinations to detect cataracts.”

“However,” he added, “when using rosuvastatin over atorvastatin, we ... emphasize the importance of meticulous monitoring and appropriate lifestyle interventions to mitigate the risk of new-onset diabetes or cataracts.”

Steven Nissen, MD, chief academic officer of Cleveland Clinic’s Heart and Vascular Institute, was not convinced, and said the study “does not provide useful insights into the use of these drugs.”

The investigators used whatever dose they wanted, “and the authors report only the median dose after 3 years,” he said in an interview. “Because there was a slightly greater reduction in low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol with rosuvastatin, the relative dose was actually higher.”

“We know that new-onset diabetes with statins is dose-dependent,” he said. “The P-values for diabetes incidence were marginal (very close to P = .05). Accordingly, the diabetes data are unconvincing. ... The similar efficacy is not surprising given the open-label dosing with relatively similar effects on lipids.”

Seth Shay Martin, MD, MHS, director of the Advanced Lipid Disorders Program and Digital Health Lab, Ciccarone Center for the Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease, Johns Hopkins Medicine, Baltimore, also commented on the results. The findings are “in line with existing knowledge and current guidelines,” he said. “Therefore, the study should not influence prescribing.”

“Although the study suggests that rosuvastatin was associated with a higher risk of new-onset diabetes mellitus requiring antidiabetics and cataract surgery, compared with atorvastatin, these findings should be interpreted with caution given the open-label nature of the study and require further investigation,” he said.

“The mean daily doses of statins were somewhat below target for secondary prevention,” he noted. “Ideally, patients with coronary artery disease (CAD) take 20-40 mg daily of rosuvastatin or 40-80 mg daily of atorvastatin.”

“Furthermore, the LDL cholesterol levels were not optimized in the patients,” he said. “The mean LDL-C was 1.8-1.9 mmol/L, which is equivalent to 70-73 mg/dL. In the current treatment era, we generally treat to LDL-C levels less than 70 mg/dL and often less than 55 mg/dL in CAD patients.”

“The cataracts finding is particularly odd,” he added. “There was historic concern for cataracts with statin therapy, initially because of studies in beagle dogs. However, high-quality evidence from statin trials has not shown a risk for cataracts.” 

So which statin has the lowest risk of triggering new-onset diabetes? As Dr. Hong noted, the literature is sparse when it comes to comparing the risk among specific statins. Some studies suggest that the risk may depend on the individual and their specific risk factors, as well as the dose and intensity of the prescribed statin.

One recent study suggests that while the overall chance of developing diabetes is small, when looking at risk by years of exposure, atorvastatin, rosuvastatin, and lovastatin carried the largest risk, whereas the risk was lower with pravastatin and simvastatin.

Risks also seemed lower with fluvastatin and pitavastatin, but there were too few study patients taking those drugs long-term to include in the subanalysis.

With input from the latest guidelines from the American Heart Association and the American Diabetes Association, as well as findings from a clinical guide on statin-associated diabetes, Dr. Hoogwerf suggests in his review that shared decision-making before starting statin therapy of any type include the following considerations/discussion points:

• For all patients: Screening to determine baseline glycemic status; nonstatin therapies to lower cholesterol; and variables associated with an increased risk of diabetes, including antihypertensive drugs.
• For patients without T2D: The possibility of developing T2D, types and doses of statins, and the fact that statin benefits “generally far outweigh” risks of developing diabetes.
• For patients with T2D: Possible small adverse effects on glycemic control; statin benefits in reducing risk for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, which “significantly outweigh” the small increase in A1c; and mitigation of adverse glycemic effects of statins with glucose-lowering therapies.

It’s worth noting that the AHA and ADA guidelines, among others, also emphasize that such discussions should include the importance of weight loss, regular exercise, and adhering to a healthy lifestyle to mitigate risks of both diabetes and heart disease, with or without statins.

Dr. Hong, Dr. Nissen, and Dr. Martin report no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Hoogwerf has disclosed ownership interest in Eli Lilly and consulting for MannKind and Zealand Pharmaceuticals.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Studies have shown links between statin use and type 2 diabetes (T2D) for more than a decade. A U.S. Food and Drug Administration label change for the drugs warned in 2012 about reports of increased risks of high blood glucose and glycosylated hemoglobin (A1c) levels. However, in the same warning, the FDA said it “continues to believe that the cardiovascular benefits of statins outweigh these small increased risks.”

Indeed, although the warning triggered much discussion at the time and a number of meta-analyses and other observational studies in more recent years, that conclusion seems to hold among clinicians and society guidelines.

For example, in a recent practice pointer on the risk of diabetes with statins published in the BMJ, Ishak Mansi, MD, of the Orlando VA Health Care System, and colleagues write, “This potential adverse effect of diabetes with statin use should not be a barrier to starting statin treatment when indicated.”

They also called for further research to answer such questions as, “Is statin-associated diabetes reversible upon statin discontinuation? Would intermittent use minimize this risk while maintaining cardiovascular benefits?”

An earlier study among individuals at high risk for diabetes found significantly higher rates of incident diabetes at 10 years among patients on placebo, metformin, or lifestyle intervention who also initiated statin therapy. Jill Crandall, MD, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, New York, and colleagues conclude, “For individual patients, a potential modest increase in diabetes risk clearly needs to be balanced against the consistent and highly significant reductions in myocardial infarction, stroke, and cardiovascular death associated with statin treatment.”

In the same vein, a recent review by Byron Hoogwerf, MD, Emeritus, department of endocrinology, diabetes, and metabolism, Cleveland Clinic, is titled, “Statins may increase diabetes, but benefit still outweighs risk.”
 

Rosuvastatin versus Atorvastatin

The latest study in this arena is an analysis of the LODESTAR randomized controlled trial of 4,400 patients with coronary artery disease in 12 hospitals in Korea which compares the risks associated with individual statins.

Senior author Myeong-Ki Hong, MD, PhD, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Severance Cardiovascular Hospital, Seoul, South Korea, said in an interview that the study was prompted by the “limited” studies evaluating clinical outcomes, including diabetes risk, according to statin type.

Dr. Hong and colleagues compared the risk of developing diabetes among those taking rosuvastatin (mean daily dose, 17.1 mg) or atorvastatin (mean daily dose 36 mg) for 3 years. While both statins effectively prevented myocardial infarction, stroke, and death, those taking rosuvastatin had a higher incidence of new-onset T2D requiring initiation of antidiabetic drugs (7.2% vs. 5.3%; hazard ratio, 1.39) and cataract surgery (2.5% vs. 1.5%; HR, 1.66).

Overall, the HR of new-onset T2D was 1.29 (95% confidence interval, 1.01-1.63; P = .04).

“The percentages of new-onset diabetes and cataract are in line with previous studies regarding statin therapy in patients with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease,” Dr. Hong said. “Additional research specifically focusing on these outcomes is required, with more frequent measurement of glucose and A1c levels to detect new-onset diabetes and regular ophthalmologic examinations to detect cataracts.”

“However,” he added, “when using rosuvastatin over atorvastatin, we ... emphasize the importance of meticulous monitoring and appropriate lifestyle interventions to mitigate the risk of new-onset diabetes or cataracts.”

Steven Nissen, MD, chief academic officer of Cleveland Clinic’s Heart and Vascular Institute, was not convinced, and said the study “does not provide useful insights into the use of these drugs.”

The investigators used whatever dose they wanted, “and the authors report only the median dose after 3 years,” he said in an interview. “Because there was a slightly greater reduction in low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol with rosuvastatin, the relative dose was actually higher.”

“We know that new-onset diabetes with statins is dose-dependent,” he said. “The P-values for diabetes incidence were marginal (very close to P = .05). Accordingly, the diabetes data are unconvincing. ... The similar efficacy is not surprising given the open-label dosing with relatively similar effects on lipids.”

Seth Shay Martin, MD, MHS, director of the Advanced Lipid Disorders Program and Digital Health Lab, Ciccarone Center for the Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease, Johns Hopkins Medicine, Baltimore, also commented on the results. The findings are “in line with existing knowledge and current guidelines,” he said. “Therefore, the study should not influence prescribing.”

“Although the study suggests that rosuvastatin was associated with a higher risk of new-onset diabetes mellitus requiring antidiabetics and cataract surgery, compared with atorvastatin, these findings should be interpreted with caution given the open-label nature of the study and require further investigation,” he said.

“The mean daily doses of statins were somewhat below target for secondary prevention,” he noted. “Ideally, patients with coronary artery disease (CAD) take 20-40 mg daily of rosuvastatin or 40-80 mg daily of atorvastatin.”

“Furthermore, the LDL cholesterol levels were not optimized in the patients,” he said. “The mean LDL-C was 1.8-1.9 mmol/L, which is equivalent to 70-73 mg/dL. In the current treatment era, we generally treat to LDL-C levels less than 70 mg/dL and often less than 55 mg/dL in CAD patients.”

“The cataracts finding is particularly odd,” he added. “There was historic concern for cataracts with statin therapy, initially because of studies in beagle dogs. However, high-quality evidence from statin trials has not shown a risk for cataracts.” 

So which statin has the lowest risk of triggering new-onset diabetes? As Dr. Hong noted, the literature is sparse when it comes to comparing the risk among specific statins. Some studies suggest that the risk may depend on the individual and their specific risk factors, as well as the dose and intensity of the prescribed statin.

One recent study suggests that while the overall chance of developing diabetes is small, when looking at risk by years of exposure, atorvastatin, rosuvastatin, and lovastatin carried the largest risk, whereas the risk was lower with pravastatin and simvastatin.

Risks also seemed lower with fluvastatin and pitavastatin, but there were too few study patients taking those drugs long-term to include in the subanalysis.

With input from the latest guidelines from the American Heart Association and the American Diabetes Association, as well as findings from a clinical guide on statin-associated diabetes, Dr. Hoogwerf suggests in his review that shared decision-making before starting statin therapy of any type include the following considerations/discussion points:

• For all patients: Screening to determine baseline glycemic status; nonstatin therapies to lower cholesterol; and variables associated with an increased risk of diabetes, including antihypertensive drugs.
• For patients without T2D: The possibility of developing T2D, types and doses of statins, and the fact that statin benefits “generally far outweigh” risks of developing diabetes.
• For patients with T2D: Possible small adverse effects on glycemic control; statin benefits in reducing risk for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, which “significantly outweigh” the small increase in A1c; and mitigation of adverse glycemic effects of statins with glucose-lowering therapies.

It’s worth noting that the AHA and ADA guidelines, among others, also emphasize that such discussions should include the importance of weight loss, regular exercise, and adhering to a healthy lifestyle to mitigate risks of both diabetes and heart disease, with or without statins.

Dr. Hong, Dr. Nissen, and Dr. Martin report no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Hoogwerf has disclosed ownership interest in Eli Lilly and consulting for MannKind and Zealand Pharmaceuticals.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Studies have shown links between statin use and type 2 diabetes (T2D) for more than a decade. A U.S. Food and Drug Administration label change for the drugs warned in 2012 about reports of increased risks of high blood glucose and glycosylated hemoglobin (A1c) levels. However, in the same warning, the FDA said it “continues to believe that the cardiovascular benefits of statins outweigh these small increased risks.”

Indeed, although the warning triggered much discussion at the time and a number of meta-analyses and other observational studies in more recent years, that conclusion seems to hold among clinicians and society guidelines.

For example, in a recent practice pointer on the risk of diabetes with statins published in the BMJ, Ishak Mansi, MD, of the Orlando VA Health Care System, and colleagues write, “This potential adverse effect of diabetes with statin use should not be a barrier to starting statin treatment when indicated.”

They also called for further research to answer such questions as, “Is statin-associated diabetes reversible upon statin discontinuation? Would intermittent use minimize this risk while maintaining cardiovascular benefits?”

An earlier study among individuals at high risk for diabetes found significantly higher rates of incident diabetes at 10 years among patients on placebo, metformin, or lifestyle intervention who also initiated statin therapy. Jill Crandall, MD, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, New York, and colleagues conclude, “For individual patients, a potential modest increase in diabetes risk clearly needs to be balanced against the consistent and highly significant reductions in myocardial infarction, stroke, and cardiovascular death associated with statin treatment.”

In the same vein, a recent review by Byron Hoogwerf, MD, Emeritus, department of endocrinology, diabetes, and metabolism, Cleveland Clinic, is titled, “Statins may increase diabetes, but benefit still outweighs risk.”
 

Rosuvastatin versus Atorvastatin

The latest study in this arena is an analysis of the LODESTAR randomized controlled trial of 4,400 patients with coronary artery disease in 12 hospitals in Korea which compares the risks associated with individual statins.

Senior author Myeong-Ki Hong, MD, PhD, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Severance Cardiovascular Hospital, Seoul, South Korea, said in an interview that the study was prompted by the “limited” studies evaluating clinical outcomes, including diabetes risk, according to statin type.

Dr. Hong and colleagues compared the risk of developing diabetes among those taking rosuvastatin (mean daily dose, 17.1 mg) or atorvastatin (mean daily dose 36 mg) for 3 years. While both statins effectively prevented myocardial infarction, stroke, and death, those taking rosuvastatin had a higher incidence of new-onset T2D requiring initiation of antidiabetic drugs (7.2% vs. 5.3%; hazard ratio, 1.39) and cataract surgery (2.5% vs. 1.5%; HR, 1.66).

Overall, the HR of new-onset T2D was 1.29 (95% confidence interval, 1.01-1.63; P = .04).

“The percentages of new-onset diabetes and cataract are in line with previous studies regarding statin therapy in patients with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease,” Dr. Hong said. “Additional research specifically focusing on these outcomes is required, with more frequent measurement of glucose and A1c levels to detect new-onset diabetes and regular ophthalmologic examinations to detect cataracts.”

“However,” he added, “when using rosuvastatin over atorvastatin, we ... emphasize the importance of meticulous monitoring and appropriate lifestyle interventions to mitigate the risk of new-onset diabetes or cataracts.”

Steven Nissen, MD, chief academic officer of Cleveland Clinic’s Heart and Vascular Institute, was not convinced, and said the study “does not provide useful insights into the use of these drugs.”

The investigators used whatever dose they wanted, “and the authors report only the median dose after 3 years,” he said in an interview. “Because there was a slightly greater reduction in low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol with rosuvastatin, the relative dose was actually higher.”

“We know that new-onset diabetes with statins is dose-dependent,” he said. “The P-values for diabetes incidence were marginal (very close to P = .05). Accordingly, the diabetes data are unconvincing. ... The similar efficacy is not surprising given the open-label dosing with relatively similar effects on lipids.”

Seth Shay Martin, MD, MHS, director of the Advanced Lipid Disorders Program and Digital Health Lab, Ciccarone Center for the Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease, Johns Hopkins Medicine, Baltimore, also commented on the results. The findings are “in line with existing knowledge and current guidelines,” he said. “Therefore, the study should not influence prescribing.”

“Although the study suggests that rosuvastatin was associated with a higher risk of new-onset diabetes mellitus requiring antidiabetics and cataract surgery, compared with atorvastatin, these findings should be interpreted with caution given the open-label nature of the study and require further investigation,” he said.

“The mean daily doses of statins were somewhat below target for secondary prevention,” he noted. “Ideally, patients with coronary artery disease (CAD) take 20-40 mg daily of rosuvastatin or 40-80 mg daily of atorvastatin.”

“Furthermore, the LDL cholesterol levels were not optimized in the patients,” he said. “The mean LDL-C was 1.8-1.9 mmol/L, which is equivalent to 70-73 mg/dL. In the current treatment era, we generally treat to LDL-C levels less than 70 mg/dL and often less than 55 mg/dL in CAD patients.”

“The cataracts finding is particularly odd,” he added. “There was historic concern for cataracts with statin therapy, initially because of studies in beagle dogs. However, high-quality evidence from statin trials has not shown a risk for cataracts.” 

So which statin has the lowest risk of triggering new-onset diabetes? As Dr. Hong noted, the literature is sparse when it comes to comparing the risk among specific statins. Some studies suggest that the risk may depend on the individual and their specific risk factors, as well as the dose and intensity of the prescribed statin.

One recent study suggests that while the overall chance of developing diabetes is small, when looking at risk by years of exposure, atorvastatin, rosuvastatin, and lovastatin carried the largest risk, whereas the risk was lower with pravastatin and simvastatin.

Risks also seemed lower with fluvastatin and pitavastatin, but there were too few study patients taking those drugs long-term to include in the subanalysis.

With input from the latest guidelines from the American Heart Association and the American Diabetes Association, as well as findings from a clinical guide on statin-associated diabetes, Dr. Hoogwerf suggests in his review that shared decision-making before starting statin therapy of any type include the following considerations/discussion points:

• For all patients: Screening to determine baseline glycemic status; nonstatin therapies to lower cholesterol; and variables associated with an increased risk of diabetes, including antihypertensive drugs.
• For patients without T2D: The possibility of developing T2D, types and doses of statins, and the fact that statin benefits “generally far outweigh” risks of developing diabetes.
• For patients with T2D: Possible small adverse effects on glycemic control; statin benefits in reducing risk for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, which “significantly outweigh” the small increase in A1c; and mitigation of adverse glycemic effects of statins with glucose-lowering therapies.

It’s worth noting that the AHA and ADA guidelines, among others, also emphasize that such discussions should include the importance of weight loss, regular exercise, and adhering to a healthy lifestyle to mitigate risks of both diabetes and heart disease, with or without statins.

Dr. Hong, Dr. Nissen, and Dr. Martin report no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Hoogwerf has disclosed ownership interest in Eli Lilly and consulting for MannKind and Zealand Pharmaceuticals.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The anti-inflammatory agent colchicine, started within 24 hours of acute ischemic stroke or a transient ischemic attack (TIA), was not associated with a reduction in subsequent strokes or other vascular events at 90 days in the CHANCE-3 trial.

The results were presented by Yongjun Wang, MD, Beijing Tiantan Hospital, Capital Medical University, at the annual World Stroke Congress, sponsored by the World Stroke Organization.

Dr. Wang noted that inflammation may be a key factor involved in the residual risk for recurrent stroke, with data from previous CHANCE trials suggesting a higher stroke recurrence rate in patients with higher levels of high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (hsCRP), a key marker of inflammation.

Low-dose colchicine, which acts as an anti-inflammatory agent, has recently been approved in many countries for patients with established atherosclerotic disease or multiple risk factors for cardiovascular disease to reduce the risk for future cardiovascular events. This follows benefits seen in those populations in the LoDoCo-2 and COLCOT trials.

The CHANCE-3 study was conducted to evaluate whether similar benefits could be found in patients with acute ischemic stroke.

The trial involved 8,369 Chinese patients with minor to moderate ischemic stroke (National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale score ≤ 5) or high-risk TIA (ABCD2 score ≥ 4) who had an hsCRP level of at least 2 mg/L.

Patients were assigned within 24 hours after symptom onset, in a 1:1 ratio, to receive colchicine (1 mg daily on days 1-3, followed by 0.5 mg daily for a total of 90 days) or placebo, on a background of optimal medical therapy.

The primary outcome was any stroke within 90 days. The key secondary outcomes included a composite of stroke, TIA, myocardial infarction, and vascular death within 90 days, and Modified Rankin Scale score greater than 1 at 90 days.

Results showed that the primary outcome of any stroke at 90 days occurred in 6.3% of the colchicine group versus 6.5% of the placebo group, a nonsignificant difference (P = .79).

All secondary outcomes were also neutral, with no differences between the two groups.

Addressing the different results in CHANCE-3, compared with those of the cardiovascular trials of colchicine, Dr. Wang pointed out that the cardiovascular trials had a much longer treatment and follow-up time (an average of 22 months), compared with just 3 months in CHANCE-3.

“Clinical trials with longer treatment times are needed to further assess the effects of colchicine after cerebrovascular events, but it may be that ischemic cerebrovascular disease and ischemic heart disease respond differently to colchicine treatment,” he concluded.

Commenting on the study, cochair of the WSC session at which it was presented, Ashkan Shoamanesh, MD, associate professor of medicine at McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont., said CHANCE-3 was a well-designed large phase 3 randomized trial and the first such trial to test colchicine for secondary stroke prevention. 

He agreed with Dr. Wang that the follow-up duration for this initial analysis of 3-month outcomes may have been too short to see an effect.

“So, we require randomized trials with longer follow-up prior to abandoning this potential treatment,” he added. 

Dr. Shoamanesh noted that several additional trials are currently ongoing testing colchicine for secondary prevention in patients with stroke. These include the CONVINCE, CASPER, CoVasc-ICH, and RIISC-THETIS trials.

He also pointed out that, in contrast to ischemic heart disease, which results from atherosclerosis, the mechanisms underlying ischemic stroke are more heterogeneous and include various vascular and cardioembolic pathologies.

The CHANCE-3 study was funded by grants from the National Natural Science Foundation of China, the Ministry of Science and Technology of China, the Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, and the Beijing Municipal Health Commission.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The anti-inflammatory agent colchicine, started within 24 hours of acute ischemic stroke or a transient ischemic attack (TIA), was not associated with a reduction in subsequent strokes or other vascular events at 90 days in the CHANCE-3 trial.

The results were presented by Yongjun Wang, MD, Beijing Tiantan Hospital, Capital Medical University, at the annual World Stroke Congress, sponsored by the World Stroke Organization.

Dr. Wang noted that inflammation may be a key factor involved in the residual risk for recurrent stroke, with data from previous CHANCE trials suggesting a higher stroke recurrence rate in patients with higher levels of high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (hsCRP), a key marker of inflammation.

Low-dose colchicine, which acts as an anti-inflammatory agent, has recently been approved in many countries for patients with established atherosclerotic disease or multiple risk factors for cardiovascular disease to reduce the risk for future cardiovascular events. This follows benefits seen in those populations in the LoDoCo-2 and COLCOT trials.

The CHANCE-3 study was conducted to evaluate whether similar benefits could be found in patients with acute ischemic stroke.

The trial involved 8,369 Chinese patients with minor to moderate ischemic stroke (National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale score ≤ 5) or high-risk TIA (ABCD2 score ≥ 4) who had an hsCRP level of at least 2 mg/L.

Patients were assigned within 24 hours after symptom onset, in a 1:1 ratio, to receive colchicine (1 mg daily on days 1-3, followed by 0.5 mg daily for a total of 90 days) or placebo, on a background of optimal medical therapy.

The primary outcome was any stroke within 90 days. The key secondary outcomes included a composite of stroke, TIA, myocardial infarction, and vascular death within 90 days, and Modified Rankin Scale score greater than 1 at 90 days.

Results showed that the primary outcome of any stroke at 90 days occurred in 6.3% of the colchicine group versus 6.5% of the placebo group, a nonsignificant difference (P = .79).

All secondary outcomes were also neutral, with no differences between the two groups.

Addressing the different results in CHANCE-3, compared with those of the cardiovascular trials of colchicine, Dr. Wang pointed out that the cardiovascular trials had a much longer treatment and follow-up time (an average of 22 months), compared with just 3 months in CHANCE-3.

“Clinical trials with longer treatment times are needed to further assess the effects of colchicine after cerebrovascular events, but it may be that ischemic cerebrovascular disease and ischemic heart disease respond differently to colchicine treatment,” he concluded.

Commenting on the study, cochair of the WSC session at which it was presented, Ashkan Shoamanesh, MD, associate professor of medicine at McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont., said CHANCE-3 was a well-designed large phase 3 randomized trial and the first such trial to test colchicine for secondary stroke prevention. 

He agreed with Dr. Wang that the follow-up duration for this initial analysis of 3-month outcomes may have been too short to see an effect.

“So, we require randomized trials with longer follow-up prior to abandoning this potential treatment,” he added. 

Dr. Shoamanesh noted that several additional trials are currently ongoing testing colchicine for secondary prevention in patients with stroke. These include the CONVINCE, CASPER, CoVasc-ICH, and RIISC-THETIS trials.

He also pointed out that, in contrast to ischemic heart disease, which results from atherosclerosis, the mechanisms underlying ischemic stroke are more heterogeneous and include various vascular and cardioembolic pathologies.

The CHANCE-3 study was funded by grants from the National Natural Science Foundation of China, the Ministry of Science and Technology of China, the Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, and the Beijing Municipal Health Commission.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The anti-inflammatory agent colchicine, started within 24 hours of acute ischemic stroke or a transient ischemic attack (TIA), was not associated with a reduction in subsequent strokes or other vascular events at 90 days in the CHANCE-3 trial.

The results were presented by Yongjun Wang, MD, Beijing Tiantan Hospital, Capital Medical University, at the annual World Stroke Congress, sponsored by the World Stroke Organization.

Dr. Wang noted that inflammation may be a key factor involved in the residual risk for recurrent stroke, with data from previous CHANCE trials suggesting a higher stroke recurrence rate in patients with higher levels of high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (hsCRP), a key marker of inflammation.

Low-dose colchicine, which acts as an anti-inflammatory agent, has recently been approved in many countries for patients with established atherosclerotic disease or multiple risk factors for cardiovascular disease to reduce the risk for future cardiovascular events. This follows benefits seen in those populations in the LoDoCo-2 and COLCOT trials.

The CHANCE-3 study was conducted to evaluate whether similar benefits could be found in patients with acute ischemic stroke.

The trial involved 8,369 Chinese patients with minor to moderate ischemic stroke (National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale score ≤ 5) or high-risk TIA (ABCD2 score ≥ 4) who had an hsCRP level of at least 2 mg/L.

Patients were assigned within 24 hours after symptom onset, in a 1:1 ratio, to receive colchicine (1 mg daily on days 1-3, followed by 0.5 mg daily for a total of 90 days) or placebo, on a background of optimal medical therapy.

The primary outcome was any stroke within 90 days. The key secondary outcomes included a composite of stroke, TIA, myocardial infarction, and vascular death within 90 days, and Modified Rankin Scale score greater than 1 at 90 days.

Results showed that the primary outcome of any stroke at 90 days occurred in 6.3% of the colchicine group versus 6.5% of the placebo group, a nonsignificant difference (P = .79).

All secondary outcomes were also neutral, with no differences between the two groups.

Addressing the different results in CHANCE-3, compared with those of the cardiovascular trials of colchicine, Dr. Wang pointed out that the cardiovascular trials had a much longer treatment and follow-up time (an average of 22 months), compared with just 3 months in CHANCE-3.

“Clinical trials with longer treatment times are needed to further assess the effects of colchicine after cerebrovascular events, but it may be that ischemic cerebrovascular disease and ischemic heart disease respond differently to colchicine treatment,” he concluded.

Commenting on the study, cochair of the WSC session at which it was presented, Ashkan Shoamanesh, MD, associate professor of medicine at McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont., said CHANCE-3 was a well-designed large phase 3 randomized trial and the first such trial to test colchicine for secondary stroke prevention. 

He agreed with Dr. Wang that the follow-up duration for this initial analysis of 3-month outcomes may have been too short to see an effect.

“So, we require randomized trials with longer follow-up prior to abandoning this potential treatment,” he added. 

Dr. Shoamanesh noted that several additional trials are currently ongoing testing colchicine for secondary prevention in patients with stroke. These include the CONVINCE, CASPER, CoVasc-ICH, and RIISC-THETIS trials.

He also pointed out that, in contrast to ischemic heart disease, which results from atherosclerosis, the mechanisms underlying ischemic stroke are more heterogeneous and include various vascular and cardioembolic pathologies.

The CHANCE-3 study was funded by grants from the National Natural Science Foundation of China, the Ministry of Science and Technology of China, the Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, and the Beijing Municipal Health Commission.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Close adherence to the Portfolio dietary pattern, including foods that have been shown to actively lower cholesterol (for example, plant proteins, nuts, viscous fiber, phytosterols, and plant monounsaturated fats) is associated with a 14% lower risk for total cardiovascular disease (CVD), coronary heart disease (CHD), and stroke, pooled results from three large observational studies suggest.

METHODOLOGY:

• The study included 73,924 women from the Nurses’ Health Study (NHS), 92,346 women from the Nurses’ Health Study II (NHSII), and 43,970 men from the Health Professionals Follow-Up Study (HPFS) without CVD at baseline who were followed biennially on lifestyle, medical history, and other health-related factors.
• From food-frequency questionnaires (FFQs) completed every 4 years, researchers categorized foods into the six components of the Portfolio diet:
• Plant protein such as legumes, beans, tofu, peas, and soymilk
• Nuts and seeds
• Fiber sources such as bran, oats, berries, and eggplant
• Phytosterols
• Monounsaturated fat (MUFA) sources such as olive oil and avocado
• High saturated fat and cholesterol sources such as whole-fat dairy and red and processed meats
• They scored each from 1 (least adherent) to 5 (most adherent), with a higher score indicating higher consumption.
• Researchers examined the association of this Portfolio Diet Score (PDS) with total CVD, CHD, and stroke, in the three cohorts, and associations with plasma levels of lipid and inflammatory biomarkers in a subpopulation of the cohorts.

TAKEAWAY:

• During up to 30 years of follow-up, there were 16,917 incident CVD cases, including 10,666 CHD cases and 6,473 strokes.
• In a pooled analysis of the three cohorts, the fully adjusted hazard ratio for total CVD comparing the highest with the lowest quintile of the PDS was 0.86 (95% confidence interval, 0.81-0.92; P for trend < .001).
• Also comparing extreme quintiles, the pooled HR for CHD was 0.86 (95% CI, 0.80-0.93; P for trend = .0001) and for stroke, it was 0.86 (95% CI, 0.78-0.95; P for trend = .0003).
• A higher PDS was also associated with a more favorable lipid profile and lower levels of inflammation.

IN PRACTICE:

“This study provides additional evidence to support the use of the plant-based Portfolio dietary pattern for reducing the risk of CVD,” which aligns with American Heart Association guidelines promoting consumption of whole grains, fruits and vegetables, plant-based proteins, minimally processed foods, and healthy unsaturated plant oils, the authors conclude.

SOURCE:

The study was conducted by Andrea J. Glenn, PhD, RD, department of nutrition, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, and colleagues. It was published online in the journal Circulation.

LIMITATIONS:

As the study was observational, residual confounding can’t be ruled out. Diet was self-reported, which may have resulted in measurement errors. Consumption of some recommended foods was low, even in the top quintiles, so the association with CVD risk may be underestimated. Information on a few key Portfolio diet foods, including barley and okra, was unavailable, potentially leading to underestimation of intake, which may also attenuate the findings.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by the Diabetes Canada End Diabetes 100 Award. The NH and HPFS studies are supported by the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Glenn is supported by a Canadian Institutes of Health Research fellowship; she has received honoraria or travel support from the Soy Nutrition Institute Global, Vinasoy, and the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics. See original article for disclosures of other authors.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Close adherence to the Portfolio dietary pattern, including foods that have been shown to actively lower cholesterol (for example, plant proteins, nuts, viscous fiber, phytosterols, and plant monounsaturated fats) is associated with a 14% lower risk for total cardiovascular disease (CVD), coronary heart disease (CHD), and stroke, pooled results from three large observational studies suggest.

METHODOLOGY:

• The study included 73,924 women from the Nurses’ Health Study (NHS), 92,346 women from the Nurses’ Health Study II (NHSII), and 43,970 men from the Health Professionals Follow-Up Study (HPFS) without CVD at baseline who were followed biennially on lifestyle, medical history, and other health-related factors.
• From food-frequency questionnaires (FFQs) completed every 4 years, researchers categorized foods into the six components of the Portfolio diet:
• Plant protein such as legumes, beans, tofu, peas, and soymilk
• Nuts and seeds
• Fiber sources such as bran, oats, berries, and eggplant
• Phytosterols
• Monounsaturated fat (MUFA) sources such as olive oil and avocado
• High saturated fat and cholesterol sources such as whole-fat dairy and red and processed meats
• They scored each from 1 (least adherent) to 5 (most adherent), with a higher score indicating higher consumption.
• Researchers examined the association of this Portfolio Diet Score (PDS) with total CVD, CHD, and stroke, in the three cohorts, and associations with plasma levels of lipid and inflammatory biomarkers in a subpopulation of the cohorts.

TAKEAWAY:

• During up to 30 years of follow-up, there were 16,917 incident CVD cases, including 10,666 CHD cases and 6,473 strokes.
• In a pooled analysis of the three cohorts, the fully adjusted hazard ratio for total CVD comparing the highest with the lowest quintile of the PDS was 0.86 (95% confidence interval, 0.81-0.92; P for trend < .001).
• Also comparing extreme quintiles, the pooled HR for CHD was 0.86 (95% CI, 0.80-0.93; P for trend = .0001) and for stroke, it was 0.86 (95% CI, 0.78-0.95; P for trend = .0003).
• A higher PDS was also associated with a more favorable lipid profile and lower levels of inflammation.

IN PRACTICE:

“This study provides additional evidence to support the use of the plant-based Portfolio dietary pattern for reducing the risk of CVD,” which aligns with American Heart Association guidelines promoting consumption of whole grains, fruits and vegetables, plant-based proteins, minimally processed foods, and healthy unsaturated plant oils, the authors conclude.

SOURCE:

The study was conducted by Andrea J. Glenn, PhD, RD, department of nutrition, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, and colleagues. It was published online in the journal Circulation.

LIMITATIONS:

As the study was observational, residual confounding can’t be ruled out. Diet was self-reported, which may have resulted in measurement errors. Consumption of some recommended foods was low, even in the top quintiles, so the association with CVD risk may be underestimated. Information on a few key Portfolio diet foods, including barley and okra, was unavailable, potentially leading to underestimation of intake, which may also attenuate the findings.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by the Diabetes Canada End Diabetes 100 Award. The NH and HPFS studies are supported by the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Glenn is supported by a Canadian Institutes of Health Research fellowship; she has received honoraria or travel support from the Soy Nutrition Institute Global, Vinasoy, and the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics. See original article for disclosures of other authors.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Close adherence to the Portfolio dietary pattern, including foods that have been shown to actively lower cholesterol (for example, plant proteins, nuts, viscous fiber, phytosterols, and plant monounsaturated fats) is associated with a 14% lower risk for total cardiovascular disease (CVD), coronary heart disease (CHD), and stroke, pooled results from three large observational studies suggest.

METHODOLOGY:

• The study included 73,924 women from the Nurses’ Health Study (NHS), 92,346 women from the Nurses’ Health Study II (NHSII), and 43,970 men from the Health Professionals Follow-Up Study (HPFS) without CVD at baseline who were followed biennially on lifestyle, medical history, and other health-related factors.
• From food-frequency questionnaires (FFQs) completed every 4 years, researchers categorized foods into the six components of the Portfolio diet:
• Plant protein such as legumes, beans, tofu, peas, and soymilk
• Nuts and seeds
• Fiber sources such as bran, oats, berries, and eggplant
• Phytosterols
• Monounsaturated fat (MUFA) sources such as olive oil and avocado
• High saturated fat and cholesterol sources such as whole-fat dairy and red and processed meats
• They scored each from 1 (least adherent) to 5 (most adherent), with a higher score indicating higher consumption.
• Researchers examined the association of this Portfolio Diet Score (PDS) with total CVD, CHD, and stroke, in the three cohorts, and associations with plasma levels of lipid and inflammatory biomarkers in a subpopulation of the cohorts.

TAKEAWAY:

• During up to 30 years of follow-up, there were 16,917 incident CVD cases, including 10,666 CHD cases and 6,473 strokes.
• In a pooled analysis of the three cohorts, the fully adjusted hazard ratio for total CVD comparing the highest with the lowest quintile of the PDS was 0.86 (95% confidence interval, 0.81-0.92; P for trend < .001).
• Also comparing extreme quintiles, the pooled HR for CHD was 0.86 (95% CI, 0.80-0.93; P for trend = .0001) and for stroke, it was 0.86 (95% CI, 0.78-0.95; P for trend = .0003).
• A higher PDS was also associated with a more favorable lipid profile and lower levels of inflammation.

IN PRACTICE:

“This study provides additional evidence to support the use of the plant-based Portfolio dietary pattern for reducing the risk of CVD,” which aligns with American Heart Association guidelines promoting consumption of whole grains, fruits and vegetables, plant-based proteins, minimally processed foods, and healthy unsaturated plant oils, the authors conclude.

SOURCE:

The study was conducted by Andrea J. Glenn, PhD, RD, department of nutrition, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, and colleagues. It was published online in the journal Circulation.

LIMITATIONS:

As the study was observational, residual confounding can’t be ruled out. Diet was self-reported, which may have resulted in measurement errors. Consumption of some recommended foods was low, even in the top quintiles, so the association with CVD risk may be underestimated. Information on a few key Portfolio diet foods, including barley and okra, was unavailable, potentially leading to underestimation of intake, which may also attenuate the findings.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by the Diabetes Canada End Diabetes 100 Award. The NH and HPFS studies are supported by the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Glenn is supported by a Canadian Institutes of Health Research fellowship; she has received honoraria or travel support from the Soy Nutrition Institute Global, Vinasoy, and the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics. See original article for disclosures of other authors.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The latest results from long-term follow-up of the two trials evaluating transcatheter aortic-valve replacement (TAVR) vs. surgery in patients with low surgical risk have shown different results.

The PARTNER-3 and Evolut trials were heralded as a landmark advance in medicine when the 1-year results from the two studies were presented back in 2019. Both trials suggested benefits of the less-invasive TAVR approach over surgery.

But because these low-surgical-risk patients are younger and will likely have a longer lifespan than will higher risk patients for whom the TAVR technique was first established, patient outcomes and information on how the TAVR devices hold up over the long-term are critical to inform clinical decision-making.

Latest results from the two trials show that the initial benefits of TAVR over surgery seen in PARTNER-3 seem to have attenuated over the longer-term, with main outcomes looking very similar in both groups after 5 years.

However, in the Evolut trial, the early benefit in all-cause mortality or disabling stroke seen in the TAVR group is continuing to increase, with current results showing a 26% relative reduction in this endpoint with TAVR vs. surgery at 4 years.

The 5-year results of the PARTNER-3 trial and the 4-year results of the Evolut study were presented Transcatheter Cardiovascular Therapeutics annual meeting sponsored by the Cardiovascular Research Foundation. Both sets of results were simultaneously published online: PARTNER-3 in The New England Journal of Medicine and Evolut in JACC.

Marty Leon, MD, of NewYork-Presbyterian Columbia University Irving Medical Center, who presented the PARTNER-3 results, said in an interview that both trials are good news for TAVR:

“Both trials have clearly reaffirmed clinical and echocardiographic benefits of TAVR as a meaningful alternative therapy to surgery in low-risk severe symptomatic aortic stenosis patients.” Michael Reardon, MD, Houston Methodist Debakey Heart & Vascular Center, who presented the Evolut results, agreed that both trials were positive for TAVR “as TAVR just has to be as good as surgery to be a winner because clearly it is a lot less invasive.”

But Dr. Dr. Reardon added that, “In making that decision for younger lower-risk patients, then the Evolut valve is the only TAVR valve that has shown superior hemodynamics and durability at all time points with excellent outcomes and widening benefits compared with surgery over the first 4 years.”
 

PARTNER-3

The PARTNER-3 trial randomly assigned 1,000 patients with severe symptomatic aortic stenosis and low surgical risk to undergo either TAVR with the SAPIEN 3 transcatheter heart valve or surgery.

The results at 5 years show no difference in the two primary composite outcomes between TAVR and surgery patients.

The incidence of the composite end point of death, stroke, or rehospitalization related to the valve, the procedure, or heart failure was similar in the TAVR group and the surgery group, occurring in 22.8% of patients in the TAVR group and 27.2% in the surgery group, which is a nonsignificant difference (P = .07).

The incidence of the individual components of the composite end point were also similar in the two groups. Death occurred in 10.0% in the TAVR group and 8.2% in the surgery group; stroke in 5.8% of the TAVR group and 6.4% of the surgery group; and rehospitalization in 13.7% and 17.4%, respectively.

Aortic-valve durability also looked similar in the two groups. The hemodynamic performance of the valve, assessed according to the mean valve gradient, was 12.8 mm Hg in the TAVR group and 11.7 mm Hg in the surgery group. Bioprosthetic-valve failure occurred in 3.3% of the patients in the TAVR group and in 3.8% of those in the surgery group.

Among the secondary end points, atrial fibrillation and bleeding appeared to be less frequent in the TAVR group than in the surgery group, whereas paravalvular aortic regurgitation, valve thrombosis, and pacemaker implantation appeared to be less frequent in the surgery group.

Functional and health-status outcomes assessed according to New York Heart Association class, quality of life scores, and the percentage of patients who were alive and well at 5 years appeared to be similar in the two groups.

“These data are reassuring,” Dr. Leon said. “Cardiovascular mortality occurred at a rate of about 1% per year with both therapies, strokes at the rate of 1% per year with both therapies, and hospitalization for cardiovascular reasons at about 3% per year with both therapies. For patients in their 70s, these are very good numbers.”

Along with showing similar outcomes for TAVR and surgery at 5 years, he added, “the need for re-intervention was particularly low (2%-3%) and equivalent for both approaches. And structural valve deterioration was also very low and equivalent in both groups.”
 

Evolut low-risk trial

The Evolut trial enrolled 1,414 patients with low surgical risk who were randomly assigned to TAVR, a self-expanding supra-annular CoreValve Evolut R PRO, or surgery.

By 4 years, the primary endpoint of all-cause mortality or disabling stroke had occurred in 10.7% of the TAVR group and 14.1% in the surgery group (hazard ratio, 0.74; P = .05), representing a 26% relative reduction with TAVR.

The absolute difference between treatment arms for the primary endpoint continued to increase over time: 1.8% at 1 year, 2.0% at 2 years, 2.9% at 3 years, and 3.4% at 4 years.

Rates of the primary endpoint components were all-cause mortality 9.0% with TAVR vs. 12.1% with surgery (P = .07); and disabling stroke was 2.9% with TAVR) vs. 3.8% for surgery (P = .32). Aortic valve rehospitalization was 10.3% with TAVR vs. 12.1% with surgery (P = .27).

The composite of all-cause mortality, disabling stroke, or aortic valve rehospitalization was significantly lower with TAVR, compared with surgery (18.0% vs. 22.4%; HR, 0.78; P = .04).

New permanent pacemaker implantation was significantly higher in the TAVR group (24.6% vs. 9.9%).

Indicators of valve performance including aortic valve reintervention (1.3% TAVR vs. 1.7% surgery); clinical or subclinical valve thrombosis (0.7% TAVR vs. 0.6% surgery); and valve endocarditis (0.9% TAVR vs. 2.2% surgery) were similarly low between groups, the authors report.

TAVR patients had sustained improvement in hemodynamics as measured by echocardiography, with significantly lower aortic valve mean gradients (9.8 mm Hg TAVR vs. 12.1 mm Hg surgery) and greater effective orifice area (2.1 cm² TAVR vs. 2.0 cm² surgery).

At 4 years, 84.7% of TAVR patients and 98.4% of surgery patients had no or trace paravalvular regurgitation, and there was no difference between groups in moderate or greater paravalvular regurgitation (0.4% TAVR vs. 0.0% surgery).

“The Evolut valve has shown a superior performance to surgery,” Dr. Reardon concluded. “It has less structural valve deterioration, less severe patient prosthetic mismatch, and superior hemodynamics, compared to surgery. All these factors are translating into a widening difference in clinical event curves year on year with the Evolut valve vs. surgery.”
 

Why the difference between trials?

The big question is why the early benefit seen with TAVR vs. surgery in both trials was attenuated by 5 years in PARTNER-3 but seemed to become greater each year in the Evolut trial. There were no definite explanations for these observations, but several possibilities were suggested.

Dr. Leon noted that with trials of intervention vs. surgery, it is common for the intervention group to do better in the beginning and for surgery to catch up a bit in later years. “So, it is not that much of a surprise to see outcomes plateauing in PARTNER-3.”

But he also suggested some other factors that may have played a role, one of which was the COVID pandemic.

“During the 2-year COVID period more than 75% of the deaths and strokes in the trial occurred in the TAVR patients,” he said. “Surgery patients were getting more anticoagulation because they had more paroxysmal [atrial fibrillation]. We know that COVID is a stimulus of thrombogenic events so in an odd way we think there may have been some cardioprotective effects from anticoagulation therapy in the surgery group.”

He also pointed out that though hospitalization and strokes were slightly lower with TAVR vs. surgery in the PARTNER-3 trial, mortality was slightly greater in the TAVR group.

“There was a 2:1 ratio in the TAVR and surgery groups in noncardiovascular deaths which influenced the all-cause mortality numbers,” he noted.
 

Mortality rates in the surgery groups

Dr. Leon also pointed out differences in the mortality rates in the surgery groups in the two trials, which he suggested may contribute to the explanation for the different longer-term results.

“The baseline characteristics for patients in these two trials were almost identical, and results at 1 year were very similar, but for whatever reason, over the course of a few years, the outcomes in the Evolut trial were different to those in PARTNER-3, and in particular the difference was in the surgical arms, with a higher event rate in the surgical arm in Evolut than in the surgery arm in PARTNER-3,” he said. “When the control does not perform well it is a lot easier to show that the experimental arm is better.”

“When you look at the TAVR arms in both studies at each time point they are either similar or PARTNER-3 is actually lower,” he added. “That is why it is so difficult to compare these two trials.”

But Dr. Reardon dismissed this argument.

“What determines long-term survival after a procedure is the intrinsic risk level of the patients,” he said. “Overall mortality rates differ between the two trials because the PARTNER-3 trial enrolled a lower end of a low-risk population while Evolut enrolled an upper end of a low-risk population. You cannot look at absolute numbers between trials. That is intellectually and scientifically invalid.”

“It is the relative difference between surgery and TAVR that we are interested in, and we see in Evolut that the relative difference between the two procedures in terms of benefit with TAVR is widening every year,” he added. “That is because the superior valve performance and hemodynamics of the Evolut valve compared to surgery has translated into excellent clinical outcomes.

“In the PARTNER-3 trial – their curves are coming together. I think that is worrisome, but I don’t want to draw conclusions about their trial,” Dr. Reardon said. “All I know is that in our trial, we have excellent outcomes that are getting better year after year.”
 

Competition between valves

The different results of the two trials is inevitably producing some competition between the two products.

Dr. Reardon said: “In terms of which valve to use, clinicians will want to choose a valve that has the best durability and shows the best survival vs. surgery and that is clearly the Evolut valve. I think the writing is on the wall. Some clinicians are going to wait for longer term data, but the question is do we have enough long-term data now.”

But Dr. Leon countered: “There’s never been a head-to-head device to suggest that the self- expanding device performs better than the balloon expanding device. We always think about them as being similar in terms of performance. There is an aggressive effort to suggest that by virtue of the current trial results there was a superior outcome with the Medtronic device, but it’s hard to explain why that would be the case, and we should not compare between the two trials.”

Both Dr. Leon and Dr. Reardon stressed that longer-term follow-up is critical because some surgical valves are known to fail between 5-10 years, and it is not known how the TAVR valves will perform over that period.

Both the PARTNER-3 and Evolut trials are planning to keep following patients out to 10 years.

For the time being though, both Dr. Leon and Dr. Reardon agreed that these current results will probably accelerate the already rapid transition from surgery to TAVR in low-risk patients.

“TAVR will be the default therapy,” Dr. Leon commented. “It will be the first choice for patients. Whether TAVR is superior to surgery in terms of outcomes or just the same, there are sufficient benefits from a logistic and patient perspective that most people would prefer to have the less invasive therapy. TAVR is a one-day procedure, there is no need for general anesthetic, a lot of the secondary outcomes that are so problematic with surgery don’t exist, and the ability to be in a symptom-free state is dramatically accelerated.”

“This was the first serious foray into the low-risk population with TAVR,” he added. “We had an age cut of 65 years, but the vast majority of patients in both trials were over 70. We could now start looking at younger patient populations.”

But Dr. Reardon said that these younger patients are already being given TAVR, and future trials randomizing between TAVR and surgery may not be possible.

“Even though US guidelines still recommend surgery for patients under 65 years, patients want TAVR, and they get TAVR,” he said. “Recent data shows that in 2021, use of TAVR rose to 47.5% in patients under 65 needing isolated aortic valve replacement. That doesn’t meet the guidelines but there’s clearly a big shift going on. These results will just keep that momentum going.”

The PARTNER-3 trial was funded by Edwards Lifesciences. The Evolut study was funded by Medtronic. Dr. Leon reports grant support from Edwards Lifesciences and Medtronic. Dr. Reardon receives research grants from Medtronic.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The latest results from long-term follow-up of the two trials evaluating transcatheter aortic-valve replacement (TAVR) vs. surgery in patients with low surgical risk have shown different results.

The PARTNER-3 and Evolut trials were heralded as a landmark advance in medicine when the 1-year results from the two studies were presented back in 2019. Both trials suggested benefits of the less-invasive TAVR approach over surgery.

But because these low-surgical-risk patients are younger and will likely have a longer lifespan than will higher risk patients for whom the TAVR technique was first established, patient outcomes and information on how the TAVR devices hold up over the long-term are critical to inform clinical decision-making.

Latest results from the two trials show that the initial benefits of TAVR over surgery seen in PARTNER-3 seem to have attenuated over the longer-term, with main outcomes looking very similar in both groups after 5 years.

However, in the Evolut trial, the early benefit in all-cause mortality or disabling stroke seen in the TAVR group is continuing to increase, with current results showing a 26% relative reduction in this endpoint with TAVR vs. surgery at 4 years.

The 5-year results of the PARTNER-3 trial and the 4-year results of the Evolut study were presented Transcatheter Cardiovascular Therapeutics annual meeting sponsored by the Cardiovascular Research Foundation. Both sets of results were simultaneously published online: PARTNER-3 in The New England Journal of Medicine and Evolut in JACC.

Marty Leon, MD, of NewYork-Presbyterian Columbia University Irving Medical Center, who presented the PARTNER-3 results, said in an interview that both trials are good news for TAVR:

“Both trials have clearly reaffirmed clinical and echocardiographic benefits of TAVR as a meaningful alternative therapy to surgery in low-risk severe symptomatic aortic stenosis patients.” Michael Reardon, MD, Houston Methodist Debakey Heart & Vascular Center, who presented the Evolut results, agreed that both trials were positive for TAVR “as TAVR just has to be as good as surgery to be a winner because clearly it is a lot less invasive.”

But Dr. Dr. Reardon added that, “In making that decision for younger lower-risk patients, then the Evolut valve is the only TAVR valve that has shown superior hemodynamics and durability at all time points with excellent outcomes and widening benefits compared with surgery over the first 4 years.”
 

PARTNER-3

The PARTNER-3 trial randomly assigned 1,000 patients with severe symptomatic aortic stenosis and low surgical risk to undergo either TAVR with the SAPIEN 3 transcatheter heart valve or surgery.

The results at 5 years show no difference in the two primary composite outcomes between TAVR and surgery patients.

The incidence of the composite end point of death, stroke, or rehospitalization related to the valve, the procedure, or heart failure was similar in the TAVR group and the surgery group, occurring in 22.8% of patients in the TAVR group and 27.2% in the surgery group, which is a nonsignificant difference (P = .07).

The incidence of the individual components of the composite end point were also similar in the two groups. Death occurred in 10.0% in the TAVR group and 8.2% in the surgery group; stroke in 5.8% of the TAVR group and 6.4% of the surgery group; and rehospitalization in 13.7% and 17.4%, respectively.

Aortic-valve durability also looked similar in the two groups. The hemodynamic performance of the valve, assessed according to the mean valve gradient, was 12.8 mm Hg in the TAVR group and 11.7 mm Hg in the surgery group. Bioprosthetic-valve failure occurred in 3.3% of the patients in the TAVR group and in 3.8% of those in the surgery group.

Among the secondary end points, atrial fibrillation and bleeding appeared to be less frequent in the TAVR group than in the surgery group, whereas paravalvular aortic regurgitation, valve thrombosis, and pacemaker implantation appeared to be less frequent in the surgery group.

Functional and health-status outcomes assessed according to New York Heart Association class, quality of life scores, and the percentage of patients who were alive and well at 5 years appeared to be similar in the two groups.

“These data are reassuring,” Dr. Leon said. “Cardiovascular mortality occurred at a rate of about 1% per year with both therapies, strokes at the rate of 1% per year with both therapies, and hospitalization for cardiovascular reasons at about 3% per year with both therapies. For patients in their 70s, these are very good numbers.”

Along with showing similar outcomes for TAVR and surgery at 5 years, he added, “the need for re-intervention was particularly low (2%-3%) and equivalent for both approaches. And structural valve deterioration was also very low and equivalent in both groups.”
 

Evolut low-risk trial

The Evolut trial enrolled 1,414 patients with low surgical risk who were randomly assigned to TAVR, a self-expanding supra-annular CoreValve Evolut R PRO, or surgery.

By 4 years, the primary endpoint of all-cause mortality or disabling stroke had occurred in 10.7% of the TAVR group and 14.1% in the surgery group (hazard ratio, 0.74; P = .05), representing a 26% relative reduction with TAVR.

The absolute difference between treatment arms for the primary endpoint continued to increase over time: 1.8% at 1 year, 2.0% at 2 years, 2.9% at 3 years, and 3.4% at 4 years.

Rates of the primary endpoint components were all-cause mortality 9.0% with TAVR vs. 12.1% with surgery (P = .07); and disabling stroke was 2.9% with TAVR) vs. 3.8% for surgery (P = .32). Aortic valve rehospitalization was 10.3% with TAVR vs. 12.1% with surgery (P = .27).

The composite of all-cause mortality, disabling stroke, or aortic valve rehospitalization was significantly lower with TAVR, compared with surgery (18.0% vs. 22.4%; HR, 0.78; P = .04).

New permanent pacemaker implantation was significantly higher in the TAVR group (24.6% vs. 9.9%).

Indicators of valve performance including aortic valve reintervention (1.3% TAVR vs. 1.7% surgery); clinical or subclinical valve thrombosis (0.7% TAVR vs. 0.6% surgery); and valve endocarditis (0.9% TAVR vs. 2.2% surgery) were similarly low between groups, the authors report.

TAVR patients had sustained improvement in hemodynamics as measured by echocardiography, with significantly lower aortic valve mean gradients (9.8 mm Hg TAVR vs. 12.1 mm Hg surgery) and greater effective orifice area (2.1 cm² TAVR vs. 2.0 cm² surgery).

At 4 years, 84.7% of TAVR patients and 98.4% of surgery patients had no or trace paravalvular regurgitation, and there was no difference between groups in moderate or greater paravalvular regurgitation (0.4% TAVR vs. 0.0% surgery).

“The Evolut valve has shown a superior performance to surgery,” Dr. Reardon concluded. “It has less structural valve deterioration, less severe patient prosthetic mismatch, and superior hemodynamics, compared to surgery. All these factors are translating into a widening difference in clinical event curves year on year with the Evolut valve vs. surgery.”
 

Why the difference between trials?

The big question is why the early benefit seen with TAVR vs. surgery in both trials was attenuated by 5 years in PARTNER-3 but seemed to become greater each year in the Evolut trial. There were no definite explanations for these observations, but several possibilities were suggested.

Dr. Leon noted that with trials of intervention vs. surgery, it is common for the intervention group to do better in the beginning and for surgery to catch up a bit in later years. “So, it is not that much of a surprise to see outcomes plateauing in PARTNER-3.”

But he also suggested some other factors that may have played a role, one of which was the COVID pandemic.

“During the 2-year COVID period more than 75% of the deaths and strokes in the trial occurred in the TAVR patients,” he said. “Surgery patients were getting more anticoagulation because they had more paroxysmal [atrial fibrillation]. We know that COVID is a stimulus of thrombogenic events so in an odd way we think there may have been some cardioprotective effects from anticoagulation therapy in the surgery group.”

He also pointed out that though hospitalization and strokes were slightly lower with TAVR vs. surgery in the PARTNER-3 trial, mortality was slightly greater in the TAVR group.

“There was a 2:1 ratio in the TAVR and surgery groups in noncardiovascular deaths which influenced the all-cause mortality numbers,” he noted.
 

Mortality rates in the surgery groups

Dr. Leon also pointed out differences in the mortality rates in the surgery groups in the two trials, which he suggested may contribute to the explanation for the different longer-term results.

“The baseline characteristics for patients in these two trials were almost identical, and results at 1 year were very similar, but for whatever reason, over the course of a few years, the outcomes in the Evolut trial were different to those in PARTNER-3, and in particular the difference was in the surgical arms, with a higher event rate in the surgical arm in Evolut than in the surgery arm in PARTNER-3,” he said. “When the control does not perform well it is a lot easier to show that the experimental arm is better.”

“When you look at the TAVR arms in both studies at each time point they are either similar or PARTNER-3 is actually lower,” he added. “That is why it is so difficult to compare these two trials.”

But Dr. Reardon dismissed this argument.

“What determines long-term survival after a procedure is the intrinsic risk level of the patients,” he said. “Overall mortality rates differ between the two trials because the PARTNER-3 trial enrolled a lower end of a low-risk population while Evolut enrolled an upper end of a low-risk population. You cannot look at absolute numbers between trials. That is intellectually and scientifically invalid.”

“It is the relative difference between surgery and TAVR that we are interested in, and we see in Evolut that the relative difference between the two procedures in terms of benefit with TAVR is widening every year,” he added. “That is because the superior valve performance and hemodynamics of the Evolut valve compared to surgery has translated into excellent clinical outcomes.

“In the PARTNER-3 trial – their curves are coming together. I think that is worrisome, but I don’t want to draw conclusions about their trial,” Dr. Reardon said. “All I know is that in our trial, we have excellent outcomes that are getting better year after year.”
 

Competition between valves

The different results of the two trials is inevitably producing some competition between the two products.

Dr. Reardon said: “In terms of which valve to use, clinicians will want to choose a valve that has the best durability and shows the best survival vs. surgery and that is clearly the Evolut valve. I think the writing is on the wall. Some clinicians are going to wait for longer term data, but the question is do we have enough long-term data now.”

But Dr. Leon countered: “There’s never been a head-to-head device to suggest that the self- expanding device performs better than the balloon expanding device. We always think about them as being similar in terms of performance. There is an aggressive effort to suggest that by virtue of the current trial results there was a superior outcome with the Medtronic device, but it’s hard to explain why that would be the case, and we should not compare between the two trials.”

Both Dr. Leon and Dr. Reardon stressed that longer-term follow-up is critical because some surgical valves are known to fail between 5-10 years, and it is not known how the TAVR valves will perform over that period.

Both the PARTNER-3 and Evolut trials are planning to keep following patients out to 10 years.

For the time being though, both Dr. Leon and Dr. Reardon agreed that these current results will probably accelerate the already rapid transition from surgery to TAVR in low-risk patients.

“TAVR will be the default therapy,” Dr. Leon commented. “It will be the first choice for patients. Whether TAVR is superior to surgery in terms of outcomes or just the same, there are sufficient benefits from a logistic and patient perspective that most people would prefer to have the less invasive therapy. TAVR is a one-day procedure, there is no need for general anesthetic, a lot of the secondary outcomes that are so problematic with surgery don’t exist, and the ability to be in a symptom-free state is dramatically accelerated.”

“This was the first serious foray into the low-risk population with TAVR,” he added. “We had an age cut of 65 years, but the vast majority of patients in both trials were over 70. We could now start looking at younger patient populations.”

But Dr. Reardon said that these younger patients are already being given TAVR, and future trials randomizing between TAVR and surgery may not be possible.

“Even though US guidelines still recommend surgery for patients under 65 years, patients want TAVR, and they get TAVR,” he said. “Recent data shows that in 2021, use of TAVR rose to 47.5% in patients under 65 needing isolated aortic valve replacement. That doesn’t meet the guidelines but there’s clearly a big shift going on. These results will just keep that momentum going.”

The PARTNER-3 trial was funded by Edwards Lifesciences. The Evolut study was funded by Medtronic. Dr. Leon reports grant support from Edwards Lifesciences and Medtronic. Dr. Reardon receives research grants from Medtronic.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The latest results from long-term follow-up of the two trials evaluating transcatheter aortic-valve replacement (TAVR) vs. surgery in patients with low surgical risk have shown different results.

The PARTNER-3 and Evolut trials were heralded as a landmark advance in medicine when the 1-year results from the two studies were presented back in 2019. Both trials suggested benefits of the less-invasive TAVR approach over surgery.

But because these low-surgical-risk patients are younger and will likely have a longer lifespan than will higher risk patients for whom the TAVR technique was first established, patient outcomes and information on how the TAVR devices hold up over the long-term are critical to inform clinical decision-making.

Latest results from the two trials show that the initial benefits of TAVR over surgery seen in PARTNER-3 seem to have attenuated over the longer-term, with main outcomes looking very similar in both groups after 5 years.

However, in the Evolut trial, the early benefit in all-cause mortality or disabling stroke seen in the TAVR group is continuing to increase, with current results showing a 26% relative reduction in this endpoint with TAVR vs. surgery at 4 years.

The 5-year results of the PARTNER-3 trial and the 4-year results of the Evolut study were presented Transcatheter Cardiovascular Therapeutics annual meeting sponsored by the Cardiovascular Research Foundation. Both sets of results were simultaneously published online: PARTNER-3 in The New England Journal of Medicine and Evolut in JACC.

Marty Leon, MD, of NewYork-Presbyterian Columbia University Irving Medical Center, who presented the PARTNER-3 results, said in an interview that both trials are good news for TAVR:

“Both trials have clearly reaffirmed clinical and echocardiographic benefits of TAVR as a meaningful alternative therapy to surgery in low-risk severe symptomatic aortic stenosis patients.” Michael Reardon, MD, Houston Methodist Debakey Heart & Vascular Center, who presented the Evolut results, agreed that both trials were positive for TAVR “as TAVR just has to be as good as surgery to be a winner because clearly it is a lot less invasive.”

But Dr. Dr. Reardon added that, “In making that decision for younger lower-risk patients, then the Evolut valve is the only TAVR valve that has shown superior hemodynamics and durability at all time points with excellent outcomes and widening benefits compared with surgery over the first 4 years.”
 

PARTNER-3

The PARTNER-3 trial randomly assigned 1,000 patients with severe symptomatic aortic stenosis and low surgical risk to undergo either TAVR with the SAPIEN 3 transcatheter heart valve or surgery.

The results at 5 years show no difference in the two primary composite outcomes between TAVR and surgery patients.

The incidence of the composite end point of death, stroke, or rehospitalization related to the valve, the procedure, or heart failure was similar in the TAVR group and the surgery group, occurring in 22.8% of patients in the TAVR group and 27.2% in the surgery group, which is a nonsignificant difference (P = .07).

The incidence of the individual components of the composite end point were also similar in the two groups. Death occurred in 10.0% in the TAVR group and 8.2% in the surgery group; stroke in 5.8% of the TAVR group and 6.4% of the surgery group; and rehospitalization in 13.7% and 17.4%, respectively.

Aortic-valve durability also looked similar in the two groups. The hemodynamic performance of the valve, assessed according to the mean valve gradient, was 12.8 mm Hg in the TAVR group and 11.7 mm Hg in the surgery group. Bioprosthetic-valve failure occurred in 3.3% of the patients in the TAVR group and in 3.8% of those in the surgery group.

Among the secondary end points, atrial fibrillation and bleeding appeared to be less frequent in the TAVR group than in the surgery group, whereas paravalvular aortic regurgitation, valve thrombosis, and pacemaker implantation appeared to be less frequent in the surgery group.

Functional and health-status outcomes assessed according to New York Heart Association class, quality of life scores, and the percentage of patients who were alive and well at 5 years appeared to be similar in the two groups.

“These data are reassuring,” Dr. Leon said. “Cardiovascular mortality occurred at a rate of about 1% per year with both therapies, strokes at the rate of 1% per year with both therapies, and hospitalization for cardiovascular reasons at about 3% per year with both therapies. For patients in their 70s, these are very good numbers.”

Along with showing similar outcomes for TAVR and surgery at 5 years, he added, “the need for re-intervention was particularly low (2%-3%) and equivalent for both approaches. And structural valve deterioration was also very low and equivalent in both groups.”
 

Evolut low-risk trial

The Evolut trial enrolled 1,414 patients with low surgical risk who were randomly assigned to TAVR, a self-expanding supra-annular CoreValve Evolut R PRO, or surgery.

By 4 years, the primary endpoint of all-cause mortality or disabling stroke had occurred in 10.7% of the TAVR group and 14.1% in the surgery group (hazard ratio, 0.74; P = .05), representing a 26% relative reduction with TAVR.

The absolute difference between treatment arms for the primary endpoint continued to increase over time: 1.8% at 1 year, 2.0% at 2 years, 2.9% at 3 years, and 3.4% at 4 years.

Rates of the primary endpoint components were all-cause mortality 9.0% with TAVR vs. 12.1% with surgery (P = .07); and disabling stroke was 2.9% with TAVR) vs. 3.8% for surgery (P = .32). Aortic valve rehospitalization was 10.3% with TAVR vs. 12.1% with surgery (P = .27).

The composite of all-cause mortality, disabling stroke, or aortic valve rehospitalization was significantly lower with TAVR, compared with surgery (18.0% vs. 22.4%; HR, 0.78; P = .04).

New permanent pacemaker implantation was significantly higher in the TAVR group (24.6% vs. 9.9%).

Indicators of valve performance including aortic valve reintervention (1.3% TAVR vs. 1.7% surgery); clinical or subclinical valve thrombosis (0.7% TAVR vs. 0.6% surgery); and valve endocarditis (0.9% TAVR vs. 2.2% surgery) were similarly low between groups, the authors report.

TAVR patients had sustained improvement in hemodynamics as measured by echocardiography, with significantly lower aortic valve mean gradients (9.8 mm Hg TAVR vs. 12.1 mm Hg surgery) and greater effective orifice area (2.1 cm² TAVR vs. 2.0 cm² surgery).

At 4 years, 84.7% of TAVR patients and 98.4% of surgery patients had no or trace paravalvular regurgitation, and there was no difference between groups in moderate or greater paravalvular regurgitation (0.4% TAVR vs. 0.0% surgery).

“The Evolut valve has shown a superior performance to surgery,” Dr. Reardon concluded. “It has less structural valve deterioration, less severe patient prosthetic mismatch, and superior hemodynamics, compared to surgery. All these factors are translating into a widening difference in clinical event curves year on year with the Evolut valve vs. surgery.”
 

Why the difference between trials?

The big question is why the early benefit seen with TAVR vs. surgery in both trials was attenuated by 5 years in PARTNER-3 but seemed to become greater each year in the Evolut trial. There were no definite explanations for these observations, but several possibilities were suggested.

Dr. Leon noted that with trials of intervention vs. surgery, it is common for the intervention group to do better in the beginning and for surgery to catch up a bit in later years. “So, it is not that much of a surprise to see outcomes plateauing in PARTNER-3.”

But he also suggested some other factors that may have played a role, one of which was the COVID pandemic.

“During the 2-year COVID period more than 75% of the deaths and strokes in the trial occurred in the TAVR patients,” he said. “Surgery patients were getting more anticoagulation because they had more paroxysmal [atrial fibrillation]. We know that COVID is a stimulus of thrombogenic events so in an odd way we think there may have been some cardioprotective effects from anticoagulation therapy in the surgery group.”

He also pointed out that though hospitalization and strokes were slightly lower with TAVR vs. surgery in the PARTNER-3 trial, mortality was slightly greater in the TAVR group.

“There was a 2:1 ratio in the TAVR and surgery groups in noncardiovascular deaths which influenced the all-cause mortality numbers,” he noted.
 

Mortality rates in the surgery groups

Dr. Leon also pointed out differences in the mortality rates in the surgery groups in the two trials, which he suggested may contribute to the explanation for the different longer-term results.

“The baseline characteristics for patients in these two trials were almost identical, and results at 1 year were very similar, but for whatever reason, over the course of a few years, the outcomes in the Evolut trial were different to those in PARTNER-3, and in particular the difference was in the surgical arms, with a higher event rate in the surgical arm in Evolut than in the surgery arm in PARTNER-3,” he said. “When the control does not perform well it is a lot easier to show that the experimental arm is better.”

“When you look at the TAVR arms in both studies at each time point they are either similar or PARTNER-3 is actually lower,” he added. “That is why it is so difficult to compare these two trials.”

But Dr. Reardon dismissed this argument.

“What determines long-term survival after a procedure is the intrinsic risk level of the patients,” he said. “Overall mortality rates differ between the two trials because the PARTNER-3 trial enrolled a lower end of a low-risk population while Evolut enrolled an upper end of a low-risk population. You cannot look at absolute numbers between trials. That is intellectually and scientifically invalid.”

“It is the relative difference between surgery and TAVR that we are interested in, and we see in Evolut that the relative difference between the two procedures in terms of benefit with TAVR is widening every year,” he added. “That is because the superior valve performance and hemodynamics of the Evolut valve compared to surgery has translated into excellent clinical outcomes.

“In the PARTNER-3 trial – their curves are coming together. I think that is worrisome, but I don’t want to draw conclusions about their trial,” Dr. Reardon said. “All I know is that in our trial, we have excellent outcomes that are getting better year after year.”
 

Competition between valves

The different results of the two trials is inevitably producing some competition between the two products.

Dr. Reardon said: “In terms of which valve to use, clinicians will want to choose a valve that has the best durability and shows the best survival vs. surgery and that is clearly the Evolut valve. I think the writing is on the wall. Some clinicians are going to wait for longer term data, but the question is do we have enough long-term data now.”

But Dr. Leon countered: “There’s never been a head-to-head device to suggest that the self- expanding device performs better than the balloon expanding device. We always think about them as being similar in terms of performance. There is an aggressive effort to suggest that by virtue of the current trial results there was a superior outcome with the Medtronic device, but it’s hard to explain why that would be the case, and we should not compare between the two trials.”

Both Dr. Leon and Dr. Reardon stressed that longer-term follow-up is critical because some surgical valves are known to fail between 5-10 years, and it is not known how the TAVR valves will perform over that period.

Both the PARTNER-3 and Evolut trials are planning to keep following patients out to 10 years.

For the time being though, both Dr. Leon and Dr. Reardon agreed that these current results will probably accelerate the already rapid transition from surgery to TAVR in low-risk patients.

“TAVR will be the default therapy,” Dr. Leon commented. “It will be the first choice for patients. Whether TAVR is superior to surgery in terms of outcomes or just the same, there are sufficient benefits from a logistic and patient perspective that most people would prefer to have the less invasive therapy. TAVR is a one-day procedure, there is no need for general anesthetic, a lot of the secondary outcomes that are so problematic with surgery don’t exist, and the ability to be in a symptom-free state is dramatically accelerated.”

“This was the first serious foray into the low-risk population with TAVR,” he added. “We had an age cut of 65 years, but the vast majority of patients in both trials were over 70. We could now start looking at younger patient populations.”

But Dr. Reardon said that these younger patients are already being given TAVR, and future trials randomizing between TAVR and surgery may not be possible.

“Even though US guidelines still recommend surgery for patients under 65 years, patients want TAVR, and they get TAVR,” he said. “Recent data shows that in 2021, use of TAVR rose to 47.5% in patients under 65 needing isolated aortic valve replacement. That doesn’t meet the guidelines but there’s clearly a big shift going on. These results will just keep that momentum going.”

The PARTNER-3 trial was funded by Edwards Lifesciences. The Evolut study was funded by Medtronic. Dr. Leon reports grant support from Edwards Lifesciences and Medtronic. Dr. Reardon receives research grants from Medtronic.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

SAN FRANCISCO – Among patients with symptomatic, severe native aortic regurgitation at high surgical risk, the JenaValve Trilogy transcatheter heart valve system (JenaValve Technology) met its primary safety and efficacy endpoints, achieving a 1-year all-cause mortality rate of 7.8%.

New pacemaker implantation was 24%, similar to previously reported outcomes.

Vinod Thourani, MD, Piedmont Heart Institute, Atlanta, presented initial outcome results of the ALIGN-AR trial at the Transcatheter Cardiovascular Therapeutics annual meeting.

Dr. Thourani concluded that the Trilogy system provides the first dedicated transcatheter aortic valve replacement options “for symptomatic patients with moderate to severe or severe aortic regurgitation or at high risk for surgery and is well positioned to become the preferred therapy upon approval for this population.”

Currently, Trilogy is not approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration in the United States and is for investigational use only.

Untreated, severe symptomatic aortic regurgitation (AR) is associated with high mortality, especially for those with NYHA class 3 or 4 symptoms, Dr. Thourani explained. “While surgery remains the only recommended intervention for patients with native severe AR, there are a multitude of high-risk patients who are not offered therapy.”

Off-label use of transcatheter valves for AR has been associated with “higher rates of complications, including paravalvular regurgitation and embolization,” he noted.

Dr. Thourani described the unique features of the JenaValve Trilogy valve. The system has a set of three “locators” in its own sheath that allows it to be rotated to align with the three cusps of the native aortic valve, falling into the sinuses and securely anchored to the native valve leaflets – then the valve is deployed. Inside a self-expanding nitinol frame is porcine pericardial tissue. A sealing ring provides sufficient anchoring while conforming to the annulus.

ALIGN-AR was a multicenter, single arm, non-blinded trial with follow-up out to 5 years involving patients with 3-plus or greater AR at high risk for surgical aortic valve replacement. Exclusion criteria included an aortic root diameter greater than 5 cm, a previous prosthetic aortic valve, mitral regurgitation greater than moderate, or coronary artery disease requiring revascularization.

After Trilogy valve implantation, patients were followed for 1, 6, and 12 months, as well as annually out to 5 years. Safety and efficacy endpoints were compared with prespecified performance goals. Of 180 patients enrolled, 177 were successfully implanted with the Trilogy device.

Patients had an average age of 75.5 years, 47.2% were women, 67.2% were in NYHA class III/IV, 82.8% were hypertensive, and one-third were frail. Severe AR was present in 62.4%, and 31.7% had moderate to severe AR.

The primary composite safety endpoint included all-cause mortality, any stroke, major vascular complication, major bleeding, a new pacemaker, acute kidney injury, valve dysfunction, or any intervention related to the device. The primary efficacy endpoint was all-cause mortality at 12 months.

The performance goal for primary efficacy was a weighted average of 25%, derived mainly from 1-year mortality figures for NYHA class I/II and class II/IV with conservative management.
 

Non-inferiority margin met

With a 25% prespecified non-inferiority margin for the primary efficacy endpoint, “We have observed a rate of 7.8%,” Dr. Thourani reported during a late-breaking clinical trials session. “The non-inferiority margin was met for the primary efficacy endpoint with a P value of less than .0001.”

“With a 40.5% prespecified non-inferiority margin of our primary safety endpoint, with a Trilogy [heart valve] we have observed a rate of 26.7%,” he said. “At 30 days there was a 2.2% mortality and a 2.2% stroke rate. There was a 26.7% primary safety endpoint, mainly driven by the 24% new pacemaker implantation rate. Without pacemaker implantation, the rate of safety events was less than 8%,” (P noninferiority < .0001).

Procedure technical success was 95%, device success 96.7%, and procedure success 92.8%. There was one ascending aortic dissection (0.6%). Moderate or greater paravalvular regurgitation also occurred in one patient. There were four cases of valve embolization.

Pacemaker implants occurred in 30% of patients in the first tercile enrolled and decreased to 14% for the third tercile enrolled. “Lower rates are most likely due to the change in the insertion technique, placing locators above the nadir of the native cusps, reduction in oversizing, and also evolution in the management of periprocedural conduction abnormalities,” Dr. Thourani proposed.

The hemodynamics of the valve improved from a gradient of 8.7 mm Hg at baseline to 3.9 mm Hg at 30 days and remained fairly stable out to 1 year. Paravalvular regurgitation was absent in 80.8% of patients at 30 days and mild in 18%. It improved over time, being absent in 93.5% at 6 months and in 92.2% at 1 year.

Left ventricular (LV) remodeling occurred over one year, with LV end systolic diameter, LV end systolic volume, LV mass, and LV mass index all decreasing significantly from baseline to one year (all P < .0001). Importantly to patients, NYHA class improved, from 32% class II, 63% class III, and 5% class IV at baseline to 54% class I, 37% class II, and 10% class III at 30 days and improving slightly out to 1 year.

These improvements resulted in better quality of life, as reflected in a 21.8-point improvement in the self-reported Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire Overall Summary Score, with a score of 77.6 at 1 year, indicating self-perceived good health.
 

Encouraging data

During the session, Robert Bonow, MD, of Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, commented that Dr. Thourani presented very encouraging data from the ALIGN-AR trial of high-risk surgical patients with significant aortic regurgitation. However, he had a couple of questions for Dr. Thourani.

One related to the efficacy data being compared with historical survival data. “So, are you planning to do a randomized study of these patients? You could argue, unlike aortic stenosis, where there’s no medical therapy, there could be medical therapies for the patients.” He noted that one-third of the patients are only in NYHA functional class II, so those patients “might do well over the long haul, with medical therapy as an agent.”

Dr. Thourani said it was an excellent question. “Doing a randomized trial with a high-risk patient [is] probably less likely,” he said. “I think there is a lot of interest among physicians on the cardiology side and on the surgery side of looking at lower-risk patients, and this could include those that are intermediate and or low risk.”

He said he believes investigators and leadership of the ALIGN-AR trial have conceived of such a trial involving all comers. “I think that’s warranted if we go into younger patients,” he said.

Dr. Bonow then asked if there was significant aortic valve calcification in the study population, because it is common with regurgitation, “which is why standard approaches are not effective ... And how does this device behave in calcified valves?” But Dr. Thourani said calcification was an exclusion criterion for this trial.

He said, “deep dives are going to come,” looking at the ventricular outcomes and also looking at a lot of the echocardiographic parameters.

Dr. Bonow related this study’s findings on ventricular remodeling to what is seen with surgical aortic valve replacement, where the ventricle decompresses within days. “And that’s predictive of good outcome if you have early data and these patients show how the ventricle remodels quickly,” he said.

The trial was supported by JenaValve. Dr. Thourani has received grant/research support from Abbott Vascular, Artivion, Atricure, Boston Scientific, CroiValve, Edwards Lifesciences, JenaValve, Medtronic, and Trisol; consultant fees/honoraria from Abbott Vascular, Artivion, Atricure, Boston Scientific, Croivalve, and Edwards Lifesciences; and has an executive role/ownership interest in DASI Simulations. Dr. Bonow had no disclosures.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

SAN FRANCISCO – Among patients with symptomatic, severe native aortic regurgitation at high surgical risk, the JenaValve Trilogy transcatheter heart valve system (JenaValve Technology) met its primary safety and efficacy endpoints, achieving a 1-year all-cause mortality rate of 7.8%.

New pacemaker implantation was 24%, similar to previously reported outcomes.

Vinod Thourani, MD, Piedmont Heart Institute, Atlanta, presented initial outcome results of the ALIGN-AR trial at the Transcatheter Cardiovascular Therapeutics annual meeting.

Dr. Thourani concluded that the Trilogy system provides the first dedicated transcatheter aortic valve replacement options “for symptomatic patients with moderate to severe or severe aortic regurgitation or at high risk for surgery and is well positioned to become the preferred therapy upon approval for this population.”

Currently, Trilogy is not approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration in the United States and is for investigational use only.

Untreated, severe symptomatic aortic regurgitation (AR) is associated with high mortality, especially for those with NYHA class 3 or 4 symptoms, Dr. Thourani explained. “While surgery remains the only recommended intervention for patients with native severe AR, there are a multitude of high-risk patients who are not offered therapy.”

Off-label use of transcatheter valves for AR has been associated with “higher rates of complications, including paravalvular regurgitation and embolization,” he noted.

Dr. Thourani described the unique features of the JenaValve Trilogy valve. The system has a set of three “locators” in its own sheath that allows it to be rotated to align with the three cusps of the native aortic valve, falling into the sinuses and securely anchored to the native valve leaflets – then the valve is deployed. Inside a self-expanding nitinol frame is porcine pericardial tissue. A sealing ring provides sufficient anchoring while conforming to the annulus.

ALIGN-AR was a multicenter, single arm, non-blinded trial with follow-up out to 5 years involving patients with 3-plus or greater AR at high risk for surgical aortic valve replacement. Exclusion criteria included an aortic root diameter greater than 5 cm, a previous prosthetic aortic valve, mitral regurgitation greater than moderate, or coronary artery disease requiring revascularization.

After Trilogy valve implantation, patients were followed for 1, 6, and 12 months, as well as annually out to 5 years. Safety and efficacy endpoints were compared with prespecified performance goals. Of 180 patients enrolled, 177 were successfully implanted with the Trilogy device.

Patients had an average age of 75.5 years, 47.2% were women, 67.2% were in NYHA class III/IV, 82.8% were hypertensive, and one-third were frail. Severe AR was present in 62.4%, and 31.7% had moderate to severe AR.

The primary composite safety endpoint included all-cause mortality, any stroke, major vascular complication, major bleeding, a new pacemaker, acute kidney injury, valve dysfunction, or any intervention related to the device. The primary efficacy endpoint was all-cause mortality at 12 months.

The performance goal for primary efficacy was a weighted average of 25%, derived mainly from 1-year mortality figures for NYHA class I/II and class II/IV with conservative management.
 

Non-inferiority margin met

With a 25% prespecified non-inferiority margin for the primary efficacy endpoint, “We have observed a rate of 7.8%,” Dr. Thourani reported during a late-breaking clinical trials session. “The non-inferiority margin was met for the primary efficacy endpoint with a P value of less than .0001.”

“With a 40.5% prespecified non-inferiority margin of our primary safety endpoint, with a Trilogy [heart valve] we have observed a rate of 26.7%,” he said. “At 30 days there was a 2.2% mortality and a 2.2% stroke rate. There was a 26.7% primary safety endpoint, mainly driven by the 24% new pacemaker implantation rate. Without pacemaker implantation, the rate of safety events was less than 8%,” (P noninferiority < .0001).

Procedure technical success was 95%, device success 96.7%, and procedure success 92.8%. There was one ascending aortic dissection (0.6%). Moderate or greater paravalvular regurgitation also occurred in one patient. There were four cases of valve embolization.

Pacemaker implants occurred in 30% of patients in the first tercile enrolled and decreased to 14% for the third tercile enrolled. “Lower rates are most likely due to the change in the insertion technique, placing locators above the nadir of the native cusps, reduction in oversizing, and also evolution in the management of periprocedural conduction abnormalities,” Dr. Thourani proposed.

The hemodynamics of the valve improved from a gradient of 8.7 mm Hg at baseline to 3.9 mm Hg at 30 days and remained fairly stable out to 1 year. Paravalvular regurgitation was absent in 80.8% of patients at 30 days and mild in 18%. It improved over time, being absent in 93.5% at 6 months and in 92.2% at 1 year.

Left ventricular (LV) remodeling occurred over one year, with LV end systolic diameter, LV end systolic volume, LV mass, and LV mass index all decreasing significantly from baseline to one year (all P < .0001). Importantly to patients, NYHA class improved, from 32% class II, 63% class III, and 5% class IV at baseline to 54% class I, 37% class II, and 10% class III at 30 days and improving slightly out to 1 year.

These improvements resulted in better quality of life, as reflected in a 21.8-point improvement in the self-reported Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire Overall Summary Score, with a score of 77.6 at 1 year, indicating self-perceived good health.
 

Encouraging data

During the session, Robert Bonow, MD, of Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, commented that Dr. Thourani presented very encouraging data from the ALIGN-AR trial of high-risk surgical patients with significant aortic regurgitation. However, he had a couple of questions for Dr. Thourani.

One related to the efficacy data being compared with historical survival data. “So, are you planning to do a randomized study of these patients? You could argue, unlike aortic stenosis, where there’s no medical therapy, there could be medical therapies for the patients.” He noted that one-third of the patients are only in NYHA functional class II, so those patients “might do well over the long haul, with medical therapy as an agent.”

Dr. Thourani said it was an excellent question. “Doing a randomized trial with a high-risk patient [is] probably less likely,” he said. “I think there is a lot of interest among physicians on the cardiology side and on the surgery side of looking at lower-risk patients, and this could include those that are intermediate and or low risk.”

He said he believes investigators and leadership of the ALIGN-AR trial have conceived of such a trial involving all comers. “I think that’s warranted if we go into younger patients,” he said.

Dr. Bonow then asked if there was significant aortic valve calcification in the study population, because it is common with regurgitation, “which is why standard approaches are not effective ... And how does this device behave in calcified valves?” But Dr. Thourani said calcification was an exclusion criterion for this trial.

He said, “deep dives are going to come,” looking at the ventricular outcomes and also looking at a lot of the echocardiographic parameters.

Dr. Bonow related this study’s findings on ventricular remodeling to what is seen with surgical aortic valve replacement, where the ventricle decompresses within days. “And that’s predictive of good outcome if you have early data and these patients show how the ventricle remodels quickly,” he said.

The trial was supported by JenaValve. Dr. Thourani has received grant/research support from Abbott Vascular, Artivion, Atricure, Boston Scientific, CroiValve, Edwards Lifesciences, JenaValve, Medtronic, and Trisol; consultant fees/honoraria from Abbott Vascular, Artivion, Atricure, Boston Scientific, Croivalve, and Edwards Lifesciences; and has an executive role/ownership interest in DASI Simulations. Dr. Bonow had no disclosures.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

SAN FRANCISCO – Among patients with symptomatic, severe native aortic regurgitation at high surgical risk, the JenaValve Trilogy transcatheter heart valve system (JenaValve Technology) met its primary safety and efficacy endpoints, achieving a 1-year all-cause mortality rate of 7.8%.

New pacemaker implantation was 24%, similar to previously reported outcomes.

Vinod Thourani, MD, Piedmont Heart Institute, Atlanta, presented initial outcome results of the ALIGN-AR trial at the Transcatheter Cardiovascular Therapeutics annual meeting.

Dr. Thourani concluded that the Trilogy system provides the first dedicated transcatheter aortic valve replacement options “for symptomatic patients with moderate to severe or severe aortic regurgitation or at high risk for surgery and is well positioned to become the preferred therapy upon approval for this population.”

Currently, Trilogy is not approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration in the United States and is for investigational use only.

Untreated, severe symptomatic aortic regurgitation (AR) is associated with high mortality, especially for those with NYHA class 3 or 4 symptoms, Dr. Thourani explained. “While surgery remains the only recommended intervention for patients with native severe AR, there are a multitude of high-risk patients who are not offered therapy.”

Off-label use of transcatheter valves for AR has been associated with “higher rates of complications, including paravalvular regurgitation and embolization,” he noted.

Dr. Thourani described the unique features of the JenaValve Trilogy valve. The system has a set of three “locators” in its own sheath that allows it to be rotated to align with the three cusps of the native aortic valve, falling into the sinuses and securely anchored to the native valve leaflets – then the valve is deployed. Inside a self-expanding nitinol frame is porcine pericardial tissue. A sealing ring provides sufficient anchoring while conforming to the annulus.

ALIGN-AR was a multicenter, single arm, non-blinded trial with follow-up out to 5 years involving patients with 3-plus or greater AR at high risk for surgical aortic valve replacement. Exclusion criteria included an aortic root diameter greater than 5 cm, a previous prosthetic aortic valve, mitral regurgitation greater than moderate, or coronary artery disease requiring revascularization.

After Trilogy valve implantation, patients were followed for 1, 6, and 12 months, as well as annually out to 5 years. Safety and efficacy endpoints were compared with prespecified performance goals. Of 180 patients enrolled, 177 were successfully implanted with the Trilogy device.

Patients had an average age of 75.5 years, 47.2% were women, 67.2% were in NYHA class III/IV, 82.8% were hypertensive, and one-third were frail. Severe AR was present in 62.4%, and 31.7% had moderate to severe AR.

The primary composite safety endpoint included all-cause mortality, any stroke, major vascular complication, major bleeding, a new pacemaker, acute kidney injury, valve dysfunction, or any intervention related to the device. The primary efficacy endpoint was all-cause mortality at 12 months.

The performance goal for primary efficacy was a weighted average of 25%, derived mainly from 1-year mortality figures for NYHA class I/II and class II/IV with conservative management.
 

Non-inferiority margin met

With a 25% prespecified non-inferiority margin for the primary efficacy endpoint, “We have observed a rate of 7.8%,” Dr. Thourani reported during a late-breaking clinical trials session. “The non-inferiority margin was met for the primary efficacy endpoint with a P value of less than .0001.”

“With a 40.5% prespecified non-inferiority margin of our primary safety endpoint, with a Trilogy [heart valve] we have observed a rate of 26.7%,” he said. “At 30 days there was a 2.2% mortality and a 2.2% stroke rate. There was a 26.7% primary safety endpoint, mainly driven by the 24% new pacemaker implantation rate. Without pacemaker implantation, the rate of safety events was less than 8%,” (P noninferiority < .0001).

Procedure technical success was 95%, device success 96.7%, and procedure success 92.8%. There was one ascending aortic dissection (0.6%). Moderate or greater paravalvular regurgitation also occurred in one patient. There were four cases of valve embolization.

Pacemaker implants occurred in 30% of patients in the first tercile enrolled and decreased to 14% for the third tercile enrolled. “Lower rates are most likely due to the change in the insertion technique, placing locators above the nadir of the native cusps, reduction in oversizing, and also evolution in the management of periprocedural conduction abnormalities,” Dr. Thourani proposed.

The hemodynamics of the valve improved from a gradient of 8.7 mm Hg at baseline to 3.9 mm Hg at 30 days and remained fairly stable out to 1 year. Paravalvular regurgitation was absent in 80.8% of patients at 30 days and mild in 18%. It improved over time, being absent in 93.5% at 6 months and in 92.2% at 1 year.

Left ventricular (LV) remodeling occurred over one year, with LV end systolic diameter, LV end systolic volume, LV mass, and LV mass index all decreasing significantly from baseline to one year (all P < .0001). Importantly to patients, NYHA class improved, from 32% class II, 63% class III, and 5% class IV at baseline to 54% class I, 37% class II, and 10% class III at 30 days and improving slightly out to 1 year.

These improvements resulted in better quality of life, as reflected in a 21.8-point improvement in the self-reported Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire Overall Summary Score, with a score of 77.6 at 1 year, indicating self-perceived good health.
 

Encouraging data

During the session, Robert Bonow, MD, of Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, commented that Dr. Thourani presented very encouraging data from the ALIGN-AR trial of high-risk surgical patients with significant aortic regurgitation. However, he had a couple of questions for Dr. Thourani.

One related to the efficacy data being compared with historical survival data. “So, are you planning to do a randomized study of these patients? You could argue, unlike aortic stenosis, where there’s no medical therapy, there could be medical therapies for the patients.” He noted that one-third of the patients are only in NYHA functional class II, so those patients “might do well over the long haul, with medical therapy as an agent.”

Dr. Thourani said it was an excellent question. “Doing a randomized trial with a high-risk patient [is] probably less likely,” he said. “I think there is a lot of interest among physicians on the cardiology side and on the surgery side of looking at lower-risk patients, and this could include those that are intermediate and or low risk.”

He said he believes investigators and leadership of the ALIGN-AR trial have conceived of such a trial involving all comers. “I think that’s warranted if we go into younger patients,” he said.

Dr. Bonow then asked if there was significant aortic valve calcification in the study population, because it is common with regurgitation, “which is why standard approaches are not effective ... And how does this device behave in calcified valves?” But Dr. Thourani said calcification was an exclusion criterion for this trial.

He said, “deep dives are going to come,” looking at the ventricular outcomes and also looking at a lot of the echocardiographic parameters.

Dr. Bonow related this study’s findings on ventricular remodeling to what is seen with surgical aortic valve replacement, where the ventricle decompresses within days. “And that’s predictive of good outcome if you have early data and these patients show how the ventricle remodels quickly,” he said.

The trial was supported by JenaValve. Dr. Thourani has received grant/research support from Abbott Vascular, Artivion, Atricure, Boston Scientific, CroiValve, Edwards Lifesciences, JenaValve, Medtronic, and Trisol; consultant fees/honoraria from Abbott Vascular, Artivion, Atricure, Boston Scientific, Croivalve, and Edwards Lifesciences; and has an executive role/ownership interest in DASI Simulations. Dr. Bonow had no disclosures.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Tongxinluo, a traditional Chinese medicine made from extracts of multiple plants and insects, significantly reduced myocardial infarction (MI), stroke, and related events when used alongside guideline-directed treatments in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI), results of a large trial suggest.

METHODOLOGY:

• The double-blind China Tongxinluo Study for Myocardial Protection in Patients With Acute Myocardial Infarction (CTS-AMI) included 3,777 adult patients, mean age 61 years, 76.9% men, with STEMI at 124 centers in China.
• Researchers randomly assigned patients to receive oral Tongxinluo using a loading dose of eight capsules (2.08 g) followed by a maintenance dose of four capsules (1.04 g) or oral placebo three times a day for 12 months.
• Doctors were instructed to also provide STEMI guideline-directed treatments, which include dual antiplatelet therapy and coronary reperfusion (percutaneous coronary intervention or thrombolysis).
• The primary endpoint was major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCEs) at 30 days, a composite of cardiac death, myocardial reinfarction, emergent coronary revascularization, and stroke.

TAKEAWAY:

• At 30 days, 3.4% in the Tongxinluo group and 5.2% in the placebo group had a MACCE (relative risk, 0.64; 95% confidence interval, 0.47-0.88; risk difference, –1.8%; 95% CI, –3.2% to –0.6%; P = .006).
• Individual components of MACCEs were also significantly lower in the Tongxinluo group, including 30-day cardiac death (3.0% vs. 4.2%; RR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.50-0.99; P = .04) and myocardial reinfarction (0% vs. 0.5%; RR, 0.35; 95% CI, 0.13-0.99; P = .003), but there was no significant difference in 30-day stroke rate.
• At 1 year, the Tongxinluo group had a lower MACCE rate than did the placebo group (5.3% vs. 8.3%; hazard ratio, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.49-0.82; P = .001), an almost significant lower rate of all-cause death (5.1% vs. 6.6%; HR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.59-1.01; P = .06), and lower rates of other outcomes.
• Rates of nonfatal serious adverse events were similar (2.2% in the Tongxinluo and 2.8% in the placebo groups; P = .25), but the Tongxinluo group had more adverse drug reactions (2.1% vs 1.1%; P = .02), which were mainly driven by symptoms in the digestive system such as stomach discomfort and nausea.

IN PRACTICE:

Unlike most traditional Chinese medicine research, the design of this study incorporated all key elements of randomized clinical trials, including placebo control and blinding in addition to randomization, so it “may serve as a model for future clinical trials to evaluate the safety and efficacy of traditional Chinese medicine,” the authors conclude.

In an accompanying editorial, Richard G. Bach, MD, cardiovascular division, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, expressed skepticism about whether the benefits of Tongxinluo can be extrapolated to populations outside China that have distinct genetic backgrounds, lipid profiles, and diets. He also stressed that the active ingredients and mechanisms of action of Tongxinluo are unknown and noted reports suggesting that traditional Chinese medicines can contain undeclared material, heavy metals, and other adulterants associated with potentially toxic effects.

In an Editor’s Note, Gregory Curfman, MD, said in making a judgment about the validity of this research, “the editors were faced with the task of walking a fine line between skepticism and plausibility.” Though all patients should receive beta-blockers and an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor or angiotensin II receptor blocker after STEMI, use of these drugs was suboptimal in these patients. Still, the benefits of Chinese medicine are plausible, said Dr. Curfman, noting research on the malaria drug artemisinin, which was isolated from a traditional Chinese medicine, was awarded the Nobel Prize.

SOURCE:

The research was led by Yuejin Yang, MD, PhD, department of cardiology, Fuwai Hospital, National Center for Cardiovascular Diseases, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, and colleagues. It was published online on Oct. 24 in JAMA. The results were previously reported at the American Heart Association Scientific Sessions 2022.

LIMITATIONS:

Despite the demonstrated clinical benefit of Tongxinluo, its active ingredients and the exact mechanisms of action have not been established. Use of guideline-directed medical therapy was suboptimal, with only 64% of patients prescribed beta-blockers and 51%-52% prescribed an ACE inhibitor or ARB during hospitalization, which may have affected the magnitude of the benefit of Tongxinluo. As study patients were all Chinese, the generalizability to other populations, especially in countries with higher adherence to guideline-directed medical therapy, is unknown.

DISCLOSURES:

The study received funding from the National Key Research and Development Program of China and a research grant from Shijiazhuang Yiling Pharmaceutical. Yuejin Yang reported receiving grants from Shijiazhuang Yiling Pharmaceutical and the National Key Research and Development Program of China; in addition, he has a patent related to the mechanisms of Tongxinluo in alleviating rat myocardial reperfusion injury and a patent related to the mechanisms of Tongxinluo on enhancing the protective effects of exosomes derived from mesenchymal stem cells in rat acute myocardial infarction. See paper for disclosures of other authors.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Tongxinluo, a traditional Chinese medicine made from extracts of multiple plants and insects, significantly reduced myocardial infarction (MI), stroke, and related events when used alongside guideline-directed treatments in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI), results of a large trial suggest.

METHODOLOGY:

• The double-blind China Tongxinluo Study for Myocardial Protection in Patients With Acute Myocardial Infarction (CTS-AMI) included 3,777 adult patients, mean age 61 years, 76.9% men, with STEMI at 124 centers in China.
• Researchers randomly assigned patients to receive oral Tongxinluo using a loading dose of eight capsules (2.08 g) followed by a maintenance dose of four capsules (1.04 g) or oral placebo three times a day for 12 months.
• Doctors were instructed to also provide STEMI guideline-directed treatments, which include dual antiplatelet therapy and coronary reperfusion (percutaneous coronary intervention or thrombolysis).
• The primary endpoint was major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCEs) at 30 days, a composite of cardiac death, myocardial reinfarction, emergent coronary revascularization, and stroke.

TAKEAWAY:

• At 30 days, 3.4% in the Tongxinluo group and 5.2% in the placebo group had a MACCE (relative risk, 0.64; 95% confidence interval, 0.47-0.88; risk difference, –1.8%; 95% CI, –3.2% to –0.6%; P = .006).
• Individual components of MACCEs were also significantly lower in the Tongxinluo group, including 30-day cardiac death (3.0% vs. 4.2%; RR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.50-0.99; P = .04) and myocardial reinfarction (0% vs. 0.5%; RR, 0.35; 95% CI, 0.13-0.99; P = .003), but there was no significant difference in 30-day stroke rate.
• At 1 year, the Tongxinluo group had a lower MACCE rate than did the placebo group (5.3% vs. 8.3%; hazard ratio, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.49-0.82; P = .001), an almost significant lower rate of all-cause death (5.1% vs. 6.6%; HR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.59-1.01; P = .06), and lower rates of other outcomes.
• Rates of nonfatal serious adverse events were similar (2.2% in the Tongxinluo and 2.8% in the placebo groups; P = .25), but the Tongxinluo group had more adverse drug reactions (2.1% vs 1.1%; P = .02), which were mainly driven by symptoms in the digestive system such as stomach discomfort and nausea.

IN PRACTICE:

Unlike most traditional Chinese medicine research, the design of this study incorporated all key elements of randomized clinical trials, including placebo control and blinding in addition to randomization, so it “may serve as a model for future clinical trials to evaluate the safety and efficacy of traditional Chinese medicine,” the authors conclude.

In an accompanying editorial, Richard G. Bach, MD, cardiovascular division, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, expressed skepticism about whether the benefits of Tongxinluo can be extrapolated to populations outside China that have distinct genetic backgrounds, lipid profiles, and diets. He also stressed that the active ingredients and mechanisms of action of Tongxinluo are unknown and noted reports suggesting that traditional Chinese medicines can contain undeclared material, heavy metals, and other adulterants associated with potentially toxic effects.

In an Editor’s Note, Gregory Curfman, MD, said in making a judgment about the validity of this research, “the editors were faced with the task of walking a fine line between skepticism and plausibility.” Though all patients should receive beta-blockers and an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor or angiotensin II receptor blocker after STEMI, use of these drugs was suboptimal in these patients. Still, the benefits of Chinese medicine are plausible, said Dr. Curfman, noting research on the malaria drug artemisinin, which was isolated from a traditional Chinese medicine, was awarded the Nobel Prize.

SOURCE:

The research was led by Yuejin Yang, MD, PhD, department of cardiology, Fuwai Hospital, National Center for Cardiovascular Diseases, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, and colleagues. It was published online on Oct. 24 in JAMA. The results were previously reported at the American Heart Association Scientific Sessions 2022.

LIMITATIONS:

Despite the demonstrated clinical benefit of Tongxinluo, its active ingredients and the exact mechanisms of action have not been established. Use of guideline-directed medical therapy was suboptimal, with only 64% of patients prescribed beta-blockers and 51%-52% prescribed an ACE inhibitor or ARB during hospitalization, which may have affected the magnitude of the benefit of Tongxinluo. As study patients were all Chinese, the generalizability to other populations, especially in countries with higher adherence to guideline-directed medical therapy, is unknown.

DISCLOSURES:

The study received funding from the National Key Research and Development Program of China and a research grant from Shijiazhuang Yiling Pharmaceutical. Yuejin Yang reported receiving grants from Shijiazhuang Yiling Pharmaceutical and the National Key Research and Development Program of China; in addition, he has a patent related to the mechanisms of Tongxinluo in alleviating rat myocardial reperfusion injury and a patent related to the mechanisms of Tongxinluo on enhancing the protective effects of exosomes derived from mesenchymal stem cells in rat acute myocardial infarction. See paper for disclosures of other authors.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Tongxinluo, a traditional Chinese medicine made from extracts of multiple plants and insects, significantly reduced myocardial infarction (MI), stroke, and related events when used alongside guideline-directed treatments in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI), results of a large trial suggest.

METHODOLOGY:

• The double-blind China Tongxinluo Study for Myocardial Protection in Patients With Acute Myocardial Infarction (CTS-AMI) included 3,777 adult patients, mean age 61 years, 76.9% men, with STEMI at 124 centers in China.
• Researchers randomly assigned patients to receive oral Tongxinluo using a loading dose of eight capsules (2.08 g) followed by a maintenance dose of four capsules (1.04 g) or oral placebo three times a day for 12 months.
• Doctors were instructed to also provide STEMI guideline-directed treatments, which include dual antiplatelet therapy and coronary reperfusion (percutaneous coronary intervention or thrombolysis).
• The primary endpoint was major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCEs) at 30 days, a composite of cardiac death, myocardial reinfarction, emergent coronary revascularization, and stroke.

TAKEAWAY:

• At 30 days, 3.4% in the Tongxinluo group and 5.2% in the placebo group had a MACCE (relative risk, 0.64; 95% confidence interval, 0.47-0.88; risk difference, –1.8%; 95% CI, –3.2% to –0.6%; P = .006).
• Individual components of MACCEs were also significantly lower in the Tongxinluo group, including 30-day cardiac death (3.0% vs. 4.2%; RR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.50-0.99; P = .04) and myocardial reinfarction (0% vs. 0.5%; RR, 0.35; 95% CI, 0.13-0.99; P = .003), but there was no significant difference in 30-day stroke rate.
• At 1 year, the Tongxinluo group had a lower MACCE rate than did the placebo group (5.3% vs. 8.3%; hazard ratio, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.49-0.82; P = .001), an almost significant lower rate of all-cause death (5.1% vs. 6.6%; HR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.59-1.01; P = .06), and lower rates of other outcomes.
• Rates of nonfatal serious adverse events were similar (2.2% in the Tongxinluo and 2.8% in the placebo groups; P = .25), but the Tongxinluo group had more adverse drug reactions (2.1% vs 1.1%; P = .02), which were mainly driven by symptoms in the digestive system such as stomach discomfort and nausea.

IN PRACTICE:

Unlike most traditional Chinese medicine research, the design of this study incorporated all key elements of randomized clinical trials, including placebo control and blinding in addition to randomization, so it “may serve as a model for future clinical trials to evaluate the safety and efficacy of traditional Chinese medicine,” the authors conclude.

In an accompanying editorial, Richard G. Bach, MD, cardiovascular division, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, expressed skepticism about whether the benefits of Tongxinluo can be extrapolated to populations outside China that have distinct genetic backgrounds, lipid profiles, and diets. He also stressed that the active ingredients and mechanisms of action of Tongxinluo are unknown and noted reports suggesting that traditional Chinese medicines can contain undeclared material, heavy metals, and other adulterants associated with potentially toxic effects.

In an Editor’s Note, Gregory Curfman, MD, said in making a judgment about the validity of this research, “the editors were faced with the task of walking a fine line between skepticism and plausibility.” Though all patients should receive beta-blockers and an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor or angiotensin II receptor blocker after STEMI, use of these drugs was suboptimal in these patients. Still, the benefits of Chinese medicine are plausible, said Dr. Curfman, noting research on the malaria drug artemisinin, which was isolated from a traditional Chinese medicine, was awarded the Nobel Prize.

SOURCE:

The research was led by Yuejin Yang, MD, PhD, department of cardiology, Fuwai Hospital, National Center for Cardiovascular Diseases, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, and colleagues. It was published online on Oct. 24 in JAMA. The results were previously reported at the American Heart Association Scientific Sessions 2022.

LIMITATIONS:

Despite the demonstrated clinical benefit of Tongxinluo, its active ingredients and the exact mechanisms of action have not been established. Use of guideline-directed medical therapy was suboptimal, with only 64% of patients prescribed beta-blockers and 51%-52% prescribed an ACE inhibitor or ARB during hospitalization, which may have affected the magnitude of the benefit of Tongxinluo. As study patients were all Chinese, the generalizability to other populations, especially in countries with higher adherence to guideline-directed medical therapy, is unknown.

DISCLOSURES:

The study received funding from the National Key Research and Development Program of China and a research grant from Shijiazhuang Yiling Pharmaceutical. Yuejin Yang reported receiving grants from Shijiazhuang Yiling Pharmaceutical and the National Key Research and Development Program of China; in addition, he has a patent related to the mechanisms of Tongxinluo in alleviating rat myocardial reperfusion injury and a patent related to the mechanisms of Tongxinluo on enhancing the protective effects of exosomes derived from mesenchymal stem cells in rat acute myocardial infarction. See paper for disclosures of other authors.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A very long time ago, when I ran clinical labs, one of the most ordered tests was the “sed rate” (aka ESR, the erythrocyte sedimentation rate). Easy, quick, and low cost, with high sensitivity but very low specificity. If the sed rate was normal, the patient probably did not have an infectious or inflammatory disease. If it was elevated, they probably did, but no telling what. Later, the C-reactive protein (CRP) test came into common use. Same general inferences: If the CRP was low, the patient was unlikely to have an inflammatory process; if high, they were sick, but we didn’t know what with.

Could the heart rate variability (HRV) score come to be thought of similarly? Much as the sed rate and CRP are sensitivity indicators of infectious or inflammatory diseases, might the HRV score be a sensitivity indicator for nervous system (central and autonomic) and cardiovascular (especially heart rhythm) malfunctions?

A substantial and relatively old body of heart rhythm literature ties HRV alterations to posttraumatic stress disorder, physician occupational stress, sleep disorders, depression, autonomic nervous system derangements, various cardiac arrhythmias, fatigue, overexertion, medications, and age itself.

More than 100 million Americans are now believed to use smartwatches or personal fitness monitors. Some 30%-40% of these devices measure HRV. So what? Credible research about this huge mass of accumulating data from “wearables” is lacking.
 

What is HRV?

HRV is the variation in time between each heartbeat, in milliseconds. HRV is influenced by the autonomic nervous system, perhaps reflecting sympathetic-parasympathetic balance. Some devices measure HRV 24/7. My Fitbit Inspire 2 reports only nighttime measures during 3 hours of sustained sleep. Most trackers report averages; some calculate the root mean squares; others calculate standard deviations. All fitness trackers warn not to use the data for medical purposes.

Normal values (reference ranges) for HRV begin at an average of 100 msec in the first decade of life and decline by approximately 10 msec per decade lived. At age 30-40, the average is 70 msec; age 60-70, it’s 40 msec; and at age 90-100, it’s 10 msec.

As a long-time lab guy, I used to teach proper use of lab tests. Fitness trackers are “lab tests” of a sort. We taught never to do a lab test unless you know what you are going to do with the result, no matter what it is. We also taught “never do anything just because you can.” Curiosity, we know, is a frequent driver of lab test ordering.

That underlying philosophy gives me a hard time when it comes to wearables. I have been enamored of watching my step count, active zone minutes, resting heart rate, active heart rate, various sleep scores, and breathing rate (and, of course, a manually entered early morning daily body weight) for several years. I even check my “readiness score” (a calculation using resting heart rate, recent sleep, recent active zone minutes, and perhaps HRV) each morning and adjust my behaviors accordingly.
 

Why monitor HRV?

But what should we do with HRV scores? Ignore them? Try to understand them, perhaps as a screening tool? Or monitor HRV for consistency or change? “Monitoring” is a proper and common use of lab tests.

Some say we should improve the HRV score by managing stress, getting regular exercise, eating a healthy diet, getting enough sleep, and not smoking or consuming excess alcohol. Duh! I do all of that anyway.

The claims that HRV is a “simple but powerful tool that can be used to track overall health and well-being” might turn out to be true. Proper study and sharing of data will enable that determination.

To advance understanding, I offer an n-of-1, a real-world personal anecdote about HRV.

I did not request the HRV function on my Fitbit Inspire 2. It simply appeared, and I ignored it for some time.

A year or two ago, I started noticing my HRV score every morning. Initially, I did not like to see my “low” score, until I learned that the reference range was dramatically affected by age and I was in my late 80s at the time. The vast majority of my HRV readings were in the range of 17 msec to 27 msec.

Last week, I was administered the new Moderna COVID-19 Spikevax vaccine and the old folks’ influenza vaccine simultaneously. In my case, side effects from each vaccine have been modest in the past, but I never previously had both administered at the same time. My immune response was, shall we say, robust. Chills, muscle aches, headache, fatigue, deltoid swelling, fitful sleep, and increased resting heart rate.

My nightly average HRV had been running between 17 msec and 35 msec for many months. WHOA! After the shots, my overnight HRV score plummeted from 24 msec to 10 msec, my lowest ever. Instant worry. The next day, it rebounded to 28 msec, and it has been in the high teens or low 20s since then.

Off to PubMed. A recent study of HRV on the second and 10th days after administering the Pfizer mRNA vaccine to 75 healthy volunteers found that the HRV on day 2 was dramatically lower than prevaccination levels and by day 10, it had returned to prevaccination levels. Some comfort there.

Another review article has reported a rapid fall and rapid rebound of HRV after COVID-19 vaccination. A 2010 report demonstrated a significant but not dramatic short-term lowering of HRV after influenza A vaccination and correlated it with CRP changes.

Some believe that the decline in HRV after vaccination reflects an increased immune response and sympathetic nervous activity.

I don’t plan to receive my flu and COVID vaccines on the same day again.

So, I went back to review what happened to my HRV when I had COVID in 2023. My HRV was 14 msec and 12 msec on the first 2 days of symptoms, and then returned to the 20 msec range.

I received the RSV vaccine this year without adverse effects, and my HRV scores were 29 msec, 33 msec, and 32 msec on the first 3 days after vaccination. Finally, after receiving a pneumococcal vaccine in 2023, I had no adverse effects, and my HRV scores on the 5 days after vaccination were indeterminate: 19 msec, 14 msec, 18 msec, 13 msec, and 17 msec.

Of course, correlation is not causation. Cause and effect remain undetermined. But I find these observations interesting for a potentially useful screening test.

George D. Lundberg, MD, is the Editor in Chief of Cancer Commons.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A very long time ago, when I ran clinical labs, one of the most ordered tests was the “sed rate” (aka ESR, the erythrocyte sedimentation rate). Easy, quick, and low cost, with high sensitivity but very low specificity. If the sed rate was normal, the patient probably did not have an infectious or inflammatory disease. If it was elevated, they probably did, but no telling what. Later, the C-reactive protein (CRP) test came into common use. Same general inferences: If the CRP was low, the patient was unlikely to have an inflammatory process; if high, they were sick, but we didn’t know what with.

Could the heart rate variability (HRV) score come to be thought of similarly? Much as the sed rate and CRP are sensitivity indicators of infectious or inflammatory diseases, might the HRV score be a sensitivity indicator for nervous system (central and autonomic) and cardiovascular (especially heart rhythm) malfunctions?

A substantial and relatively old body of heart rhythm literature ties HRV alterations to posttraumatic stress disorder, physician occupational stress, sleep disorders, depression, autonomic nervous system derangements, various cardiac arrhythmias, fatigue, overexertion, medications, and age itself.

More than 100 million Americans are now believed to use smartwatches or personal fitness monitors. Some 30%-40% of these devices measure HRV. So what? Credible research about this huge mass of accumulating data from “wearables” is lacking.
 

What is HRV?

HRV is the variation in time between each heartbeat, in milliseconds. HRV is influenced by the autonomic nervous system, perhaps reflecting sympathetic-parasympathetic balance. Some devices measure HRV 24/7. My Fitbit Inspire 2 reports only nighttime measures during 3 hours of sustained sleep. Most trackers report averages; some calculate the root mean squares; others calculate standard deviations. All fitness trackers warn not to use the data for medical purposes.

Normal values (reference ranges) for HRV begin at an average of 100 msec in the first decade of life and decline by approximately 10 msec per decade lived. At age 30-40, the average is 70 msec; age 60-70, it’s 40 msec; and at age 90-100, it’s 10 msec.

As a long-time lab guy, I used to teach proper use of lab tests. Fitness trackers are “lab tests” of a sort. We taught never to do a lab test unless you know what you are going to do with the result, no matter what it is. We also taught “never do anything just because you can.” Curiosity, we know, is a frequent driver of lab test ordering.

That underlying philosophy gives me a hard time when it comes to wearables. I have been enamored of watching my step count, active zone minutes, resting heart rate, active heart rate, various sleep scores, and breathing rate (and, of course, a manually entered early morning daily body weight) for several years. I even check my “readiness score” (a calculation using resting heart rate, recent sleep, recent active zone minutes, and perhaps HRV) each morning and adjust my behaviors accordingly.
 

Why monitor HRV?

But what should we do with HRV scores? Ignore them? Try to understand them, perhaps as a screening tool? Or monitor HRV for consistency or change? “Monitoring” is a proper and common use of lab tests.

Some say we should improve the HRV score by managing stress, getting regular exercise, eating a healthy diet, getting enough sleep, and not smoking or consuming excess alcohol. Duh! I do all of that anyway.

The claims that HRV is a “simple but powerful tool that can be used to track overall health and well-being” might turn out to be true. Proper study and sharing of data will enable that determination.

To advance understanding, I offer an n-of-1, a real-world personal anecdote about HRV.

I did not request the HRV function on my Fitbit Inspire 2. It simply appeared, and I ignored it for some time.

A year or two ago, I started noticing my HRV score every morning. Initially, I did not like to see my “low” score, until I learned that the reference range was dramatically affected by age and I was in my late 80s at the time. The vast majority of my HRV readings were in the range of 17 msec to 27 msec.

Last week, I was administered the new Moderna COVID-19 Spikevax vaccine and the old folks’ influenza vaccine simultaneously. In my case, side effects from each vaccine have been modest in the past, but I never previously had both administered at the same time. My immune response was, shall we say, robust. Chills, muscle aches, headache, fatigue, deltoid swelling, fitful sleep, and increased resting heart rate.

My nightly average HRV had been running between 17 msec and 35 msec for many months. WHOA! After the shots, my overnight HRV score plummeted from 24 msec to 10 msec, my lowest ever. Instant worry. The next day, it rebounded to 28 msec, and it has been in the high teens or low 20s since then.

Off to PubMed. A recent study of HRV on the second and 10th days after administering the Pfizer mRNA vaccine to 75 healthy volunteers found that the HRV on day 2 was dramatically lower than prevaccination levels and by day 10, it had returned to prevaccination levels. Some comfort there.

Another review article has reported a rapid fall and rapid rebound of HRV after COVID-19 vaccination. A 2010 report demonstrated a significant but not dramatic short-term lowering of HRV after influenza A vaccination and correlated it with CRP changes.

Some believe that the decline in HRV after vaccination reflects an increased immune response and sympathetic nervous activity.

I don’t plan to receive my flu and COVID vaccines on the same day again.

So, I went back to review what happened to my HRV when I had COVID in 2023. My HRV was 14 msec and 12 msec on the first 2 days of symptoms, and then returned to the 20 msec range.

I received the RSV vaccine this year without adverse effects, and my HRV scores were 29 msec, 33 msec, and 32 msec on the first 3 days after vaccination. Finally, after receiving a pneumococcal vaccine in 2023, I had no adverse effects, and my HRV scores on the 5 days after vaccination were indeterminate: 19 msec, 14 msec, 18 msec, 13 msec, and 17 msec.

Of course, correlation is not causation. Cause and effect remain undetermined. But I find these observations interesting for a potentially useful screening test.

George D. Lundberg, MD, is the Editor in Chief of Cancer Commons.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A very long time ago, when I ran clinical labs, one of the most ordered tests was the “sed rate” (aka ESR, the erythrocyte sedimentation rate). Easy, quick, and low cost, with high sensitivity but very low specificity. If the sed rate was normal, the patient probably did not have an infectious or inflammatory disease. If it was elevated, they probably did, but no telling what. Later, the C-reactive protein (CRP) test came into common use. Same general inferences: If the CRP was low, the patient was unlikely to have an inflammatory process; if high, they were sick, but we didn’t know what with.

Could the heart rate variability (HRV) score come to be thought of similarly? Much as the sed rate and CRP are sensitivity indicators of infectious or inflammatory diseases, might the HRV score be a sensitivity indicator for nervous system (central and autonomic) and cardiovascular (especially heart rhythm) malfunctions?

A substantial and relatively old body of heart rhythm literature ties HRV alterations to posttraumatic stress disorder, physician occupational stress, sleep disorders, depression, autonomic nervous system derangements, various cardiac arrhythmias, fatigue, overexertion, medications, and age itself.

More than 100 million Americans are now believed to use smartwatches or personal fitness monitors. Some 30%-40% of these devices measure HRV. So what? Credible research about this huge mass of accumulating data from “wearables” is lacking.
 

What is HRV?

HRV is the variation in time between each heartbeat, in milliseconds. HRV is influenced by the autonomic nervous system, perhaps reflecting sympathetic-parasympathetic balance. Some devices measure HRV 24/7. My Fitbit Inspire 2 reports only nighttime measures during 3 hours of sustained sleep. Most trackers report averages; some calculate the root mean squares; others calculate standard deviations. All fitness trackers warn not to use the data for medical purposes.

Normal values (reference ranges) for HRV begin at an average of 100 msec in the first decade of life and decline by approximately 10 msec per decade lived. At age 30-40, the average is 70 msec; age 60-70, it’s 40 msec; and at age 90-100, it’s 10 msec.

As a long-time lab guy, I used to teach proper use of lab tests. Fitness trackers are “lab tests” of a sort. We taught never to do a lab test unless you know what you are going to do with the result, no matter what it is. We also taught “never do anything just because you can.” Curiosity, we know, is a frequent driver of lab test ordering.

That underlying philosophy gives me a hard time when it comes to wearables. I have been enamored of watching my step count, active zone minutes, resting heart rate, active heart rate, various sleep scores, and breathing rate (and, of course, a manually entered early morning daily body weight) for several years. I even check my “readiness score” (a calculation using resting heart rate, recent sleep, recent active zone minutes, and perhaps HRV) each morning and adjust my behaviors accordingly.
 

Why monitor HRV?

But what should we do with HRV scores? Ignore them? Try to understand them, perhaps as a screening tool? Or monitor HRV for consistency or change? “Monitoring” is a proper and common use of lab tests.

Some say we should improve the HRV score by managing stress, getting regular exercise, eating a healthy diet, getting enough sleep, and not smoking or consuming excess alcohol. Duh! I do all of that anyway.

The claims that HRV is a “simple but powerful tool that can be used to track overall health and well-being” might turn out to be true. Proper study and sharing of data will enable that determination.

To advance understanding, I offer an n-of-1, a real-world personal anecdote about HRV.

I did not request the HRV function on my Fitbit Inspire 2. It simply appeared, and I ignored it for some time.

A year or two ago, I started noticing my HRV score every morning. Initially, I did not like to see my “low” score, until I learned that the reference range was dramatically affected by age and I was in my late 80s at the time. The vast majority of my HRV readings were in the range of 17 msec to 27 msec.

Last week, I was administered the new Moderna COVID-19 Spikevax vaccine and the old folks’ influenza vaccine simultaneously. In my case, side effects from each vaccine have been modest in the past, but I never previously had both administered at the same time. My immune response was, shall we say, robust. Chills, muscle aches, headache, fatigue, deltoid swelling, fitful sleep, and increased resting heart rate.

My nightly average HRV had been running between 17 msec and 35 msec for many months. WHOA! After the shots, my overnight HRV score plummeted from 24 msec to 10 msec, my lowest ever. Instant worry. The next day, it rebounded to 28 msec, and it has been in the high teens or low 20s since then.

Off to PubMed. A recent study of HRV on the second and 10th days after administering the Pfizer mRNA vaccine to 75 healthy volunteers found that the HRV on day 2 was dramatically lower than prevaccination levels and by day 10, it had returned to prevaccination levels. Some comfort there.

Another review article has reported a rapid fall and rapid rebound of HRV after COVID-19 vaccination. A 2010 report demonstrated a significant but not dramatic short-term lowering of HRV after influenza A vaccination and correlated it with CRP changes.

Some believe that the decline in HRV after vaccination reflects an increased immune response and sympathetic nervous activity.

I don’t plan to receive my flu and COVID vaccines on the same day again.

So, I went back to review what happened to my HRV when I had COVID in 2023. My HRV was 14 msec and 12 msec on the first 2 days of symptoms, and then returned to the 20 msec range.

I received the RSV vaccine this year without adverse effects, and my HRV scores were 29 msec, 33 msec, and 32 msec on the first 3 days after vaccination. Finally, after receiving a pneumococcal vaccine in 2023, I had no adverse effects, and my HRV scores on the 5 days after vaccination were indeterminate: 19 msec, 14 msec, 18 msec, 13 msec, and 17 msec.

Of course, correlation is not causation. Cause and effect remain undetermined. But I find these observations interesting for a potentially useful screening test.

George D. Lundberg, MD, is the Editor in Chief of Cancer Commons.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Intensive antihypertensive treatment provides the same benefit with regard to cardiovascular disease (CVD) and all-cause mortality regardless of the presence or absence of orthostatic or standing hypotension, new research shows.

METHODOLOGY:

• In response to ongoing concern about the benefits of intensive versus standard blood pressure treatment for adults with orthostatic hypotension (OH), researchers conducted a meta-analysis of individual patient data from nine randomized clinical trials to see whether the benefit of antihypertensive treatment was diminished for patients who had OH at baseline. Benefit was defined as a reduction in nonfatal CVD events and all-cause mortality.
• The included trials assessed BP pharmacologic treatment (more intensive BP goal or active agent) and had data on OH.

TAKEAWAY:

• The nine trials included 29,235 participants (mean age, 69 years; 48% women) who were followed for a median of 4 years; 9% had OH and 5% had standing hypotension at baseline.
• Having OH at baseline was significantly associated with the composite of CVD or all-cause mortality (hazard ratio, 1.14; 95% confidence interval, 1.04-1.26) and with all-cause mortality (HR, 1.24; 95% CI, 1.09-1.41). The same was true for baseline standing hypotension (composite outcome: HR, 1.39; 95% CI, 1.24-1.57; all-cause mortality: HR, 1.38; 95% CI, 1.14-1.66).
• More intensive BP treatment or active therapy significantly and similarly lowered risk of CVD or all-cause mortality among adults who did not have OH at baseline (HR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.76-0.86) as well as those with OH at baseline (HR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.70-1.00).
• More intensive BP treatment or active therapy also significantly lowered risk of CVD or all-cause mortality among those without baseline standing hypotension (HR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.75-0.85) and nonsignificantly lowered the risk among those with baseline standing hypotension (HR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.75-1.18).

IN PRACTICE:

“These findings suggest that orthostatic hypotension alone (that is, without symptoms) and standing hypotension measured prior to intensification of BP treatment should not deter adoption of more intensive BP treatment in adults with hypertension,” the authors conclude.

The findings should “reassure clinicians that patients with OH (and perhaps standing hypotension) will derive the full expected benefits from antihypertensive therapy,” add the authors of an accompanying editorial. “This also applies to patients treated to lower BP goals, albeit with less certainty.”

SOURCE:

The study, with first author Stephen Juraschek, MD, PhD, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center/Harvard Medical School, Boston, and the accompanying editorial were published online in JAMA.

LIMITATIONS:

In the hypertension trials that were included in the analysis, the study populations differed, as did BP measurement procedures, interventions, duration, and CVD outcome ascertainment processes and definitions. Some trials excluded adults with low standing systolic BP, limiting the number of participants with standing hypotension. OH was determined on the basis of a seated-to-standing protocol; supine-to-standing protocols are more sensitive and may not be interchangeable. Medications used in the trials may not reflect current medicine practice, or the trials may not have included agents thought to be more likely to affect OH and falls.

DISCLOSURES:

The study had no specific funding. Dr. Juraschek has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Intensive antihypertensive treatment provides the same benefit with regard to cardiovascular disease (CVD) and all-cause mortality regardless of the presence or absence of orthostatic or standing hypotension, new research shows.

METHODOLOGY:

• In response to ongoing concern about the benefits of intensive versus standard blood pressure treatment for adults with orthostatic hypotension (OH), researchers conducted a meta-analysis of individual patient data from nine randomized clinical trials to see whether the benefit of antihypertensive treatment was diminished for patients who had OH at baseline. Benefit was defined as a reduction in nonfatal CVD events and all-cause mortality.
• The included trials assessed BP pharmacologic treatment (more intensive BP goal or active agent) and had data on OH.

TAKEAWAY:

• The nine trials included 29,235 participants (mean age, 69 years; 48% women) who were followed for a median of 4 years; 9% had OH and 5% had standing hypotension at baseline.
• Having OH at baseline was significantly associated with the composite of CVD or all-cause mortality (hazard ratio, 1.14; 95% confidence interval, 1.04-1.26) and with all-cause mortality (HR, 1.24; 95% CI, 1.09-1.41). The same was true for baseline standing hypotension (composite outcome: HR, 1.39; 95% CI, 1.24-1.57; all-cause mortality: HR, 1.38; 95% CI, 1.14-1.66).
• More intensive BP treatment or active therapy significantly and similarly lowered risk of CVD or all-cause mortality among adults who did not have OH at baseline (HR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.76-0.86) as well as those with OH at baseline (HR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.70-1.00).
• More intensive BP treatment or active therapy also significantly lowered risk of CVD or all-cause mortality among those without baseline standing hypotension (HR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.75-0.85) and nonsignificantly lowered the risk among those with baseline standing hypotension (HR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.75-1.18).

IN PRACTICE:

“These findings suggest that orthostatic hypotension alone (that is, without symptoms) and standing hypotension measured prior to intensification of BP treatment should not deter adoption of more intensive BP treatment in adults with hypertension,” the authors conclude.

The findings should “reassure clinicians that patients with OH (and perhaps standing hypotension) will derive the full expected benefits from antihypertensive therapy,” add the authors of an accompanying editorial. “This also applies to patients treated to lower BP goals, albeit with less certainty.”

SOURCE:

The study, with first author Stephen Juraschek, MD, PhD, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center/Harvard Medical School, Boston, and the accompanying editorial were published online in JAMA.

LIMITATIONS:

In the hypertension trials that were included in the analysis, the study populations differed, as did BP measurement procedures, interventions, duration, and CVD outcome ascertainment processes and definitions. Some trials excluded adults with low standing systolic BP, limiting the number of participants with standing hypotension. OH was determined on the basis of a seated-to-standing protocol; supine-to-standing protocols are more sensitive and may not be interchangeable. Medications used in the trials may not reflect current medicine practice, or the trials may not have included agents thought to be more likely to affect OH and falls.

DISCLOSURES:

The study had no specific funding. Dr. Juraschek has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Intensive antihypertensive treatment provides the same benefit with regard to cardiovascular disease (CVD) and all-cause mortality regardless of the presence or absence of orthostatic or standing hypotension, new research shows.

METHODOLOGY:

• In response to ongoing concern about the benefits of intensive versus standard blood pressure treatment for adults with orthostatic hypotension (OH), researchers conducted a meta-analysis of individual patient data from nine randomized clinical trials to see whether the benefit of antihypertensive treatment was diminished for patients who had OH at baseline. Benefit was defined as a reduction in nonfatal CVD events and all-cause mortality.
• The included trials assessed BP pharmacologic treatment (more intensive BP goal or active agent) and had data on OH.

TAKEAWAY:

• The nine trials included 29,235 participants (mean age, 69 years; 48% women) who were followed for a median of 4 years; 9% had OH and 5% had standing hypotension at baseline.
• Having OH at baseline was significantly associated with the composite of CVD or all-cause mortality (hazard ratio, 1.14; 95% confidence interval, 1.04-1.26) and with all-cause mortality (HR, 1.24; 95% CI, 1.09-1.41). The same was true for baseline standing hypotension (composite outcome: HR, 1.39; 95% CI, 1.24-1.57; all-cause mortality: HR, 1.38; 95% CI, 1.14-1.66).
• More intensive BP treatment or active therapy significantly and similarly lowered risk of CVD or all-cause mortality among adults who did not have OH at baseline (HR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.76-0.86) as well as those with OH at baseline (HR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.70-1.00).
• More intensive BP treatment or active therapy also significantly lowered risk of CVD or all-cause mortality among those without baseline standing hypotension (HR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.75-0.85) and nonsignificantly lowered the risk among those with baseline standing hypotension (HR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.75-1.18).

IN PRACTICE:

“These findings suggest that orthostatic hypotension alone (that is, without symptoms) and standing hypotension measured prior to intensification of BP treatment should not deter adoption of more intensive BP treatment in adults with hypertension,” the authors conclude.

The findings should “reassure clinicians that patients with OH (and perhaps standing hypotension) will derive the full expected benefits from antihypertensive therapy,” add the authors of an accompanying editorial. “This also applies to patients treated to lower BP goals, albeit with less certainty.”

SOURCE:

The study, with first author Stephen Juraschek, MD, PhD, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center/Harvard Medical School, Boston, and the accompanying editorial were published online in JAMA.

LIMITATIONS:

In the hypertension trials that were included in the analysis, the study populations differed, as did BP measurement procedures, interventions, duration, and CVD outcome ascertainment processes and definitions. Some trials excluded adults with low standing systolic BP, limiting the number of participants with standing hypotension. OH was determined on the basis of a seated-to-standing protocol; supine-to-standing protocols are more sensitive and may not be interchangeable. Medications used in the trials may not reflect current medicine practice, or the trials may not have included agents thought to be more likely to affect OH and falls.

DISCLOSURES:

The study had no specific funding. Dr. Juraschek has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

WASHINGTON – The entire video clip is just 15 seconds — 15 seconds that went viral and temporarily upended the entire life and disrupted the medical practice of Nicole Baldwin, MD, a pediatrician in Cincinnati, Ohio, in January 2020. At the annual meeting of the American Academy of Pediatrics, Dr. Baldwin told attendees how her pro-vaccine TikTok video led a horde of anti-vaccine activists to swarm her social media profiles across multiple platforms, leave one-star reviews with false stories about her medical practice on various doctor review sites, and personally threaten her.

The initial response to the video was positive, with 50,000 views in the first 24 hours after the video was posted and more than 1.5 million views the next day. But 2 days after the video was posted, an organized attack that originated on Facebook required Dr. Baldwin to enlist the help of 16 volunteers, working 24/7 for a week, to help ban and block more than 6,000 users on Facebook, Instagram, and TikTok. Just 4 days after she’d posted the video, Dr. Baldwin was reporting personal threats to the police and had begun contacting sites such as Yelp, Google, Healthgrades, Vitals, RateMDs, and WebMD so they could start removing false reviews about her practice.

Today, years after those 2 exhausting, intense weeks of attacks, Dr. Baldwin has found two silver linings in the experience: More people have found her profiles, allowing her to share evidence-based information with an even wider audience, and she can now help other physicians protect themselves and reduce the risk of similar attacks, or at least know how to respond to them if they occur. Dr. Baldwin shared a wealth of tips and resources during her lecture to help pediatricians prepare ahead for the possibility that they will be targeted next, whether the issue is vaccines or another topic.
 

Online risks and benefits

A Pew survey of U.S. adults in September 2020 found that 41% have personally experienced online harassment, including a quarter of Americans who have experienced severe harassment. More than half of respondents said online harassment and bullying is a major problem – and that was a poll of the entire population, not even just physicians and scientists.

“Now, these numbers would be higher,” Dr. Baldwin said. “A lot has changed in the past 3 years, and the landscape is very different.”

The pandemic contributed to those changes to the landscape, including an increase in harassment of doctors and researchers. A June 2023 study revealed that two-thirds of 359 respondents in an online survey reported harassment on social media, a substantial number even after accounting for selection bias in the individuals who chose to respond to the survey. Although most of the attacks (88%) resulted from the respondent’s advocacy online, nearly half the attacks (45%) were gender based, 27% were based on race/ethnicity, and 13% were based on sexual orientation.

While hateful comments are likely the most common type of online harassment, other types can involve sharing or tagging your profile, creating fake profiles to misrepresent you, fake reviews of your practice, harassing phone calls and hate mail at your office, and doxxing, in which someone online widely shares your personal address, phone number, email, or other contact information.

Despite the risks of all these forms of harassment, Dr. Baldwin emphasized the value of doctors having a social media presence given how much misinformation thrives online. For example, a recent report from the Kaiser Family Foundation revealed how many people weren’t sure whether certain health misinformation claims were true or false. Barely a third of people were sure that COVID-19 vaccines had not caused thousands of deaths in healthy people, and only 22% of people were sure that ivermectin is not an effective treatment for COVID.

“There is so much that we need to be doing and working in these spaces to put evidence-based content out there so that people are not finding all of this crap from everybody else,” Dr. Baldwin said. Having an online presence is particularly important given that the public still has high levels of trust in their doctors, she added.

“They trust their physician, and you may not be their physician online, but I will tell you from experience, when you build a community of followers, you become that trusted source of information for them, and it is so important,” Dr. Baldwin said. “There is room for everybody in this space, and we need all of you.”
 

Proactive steps for protection

Dr. Baldwin then went through the details of what people should do now to make things easier in the event of an attack later. “The best defense is a good offense,” Dr. Baldwin said, “so make sure all of your accounts are secure.”

She recommended the following steps:

• Use two-factor authentication for all of your logins.
• Use strong, unique passwords for all of your logins.
• Use strong privacy settings on all of your private social media profiles, such as making sure photos are not visible on your personal Facebook account.
• Claim your Google profile and Yelp business profile.
• Claim your doctor and/or business profile on all of the medical review sites where you have one, including Google, Healthgrades, Vitals, RateMDs, and WebMD.

For doctors who are attacked specifically because of pro-vaccine advocacy, Dr. Baldwin recommended contacting Shots Heard Round The World, a site that was created by a physician whose practice was attacked by anti-vaccine activists. The site also has a toolkit that anyone can download for tips on preparing ahead for possible attacks and what to do if you are attacked.

Dr. Baldwin then reviewed how to set up different social media profiles to automatically hide certain comments, including comments with words commonly used by online harassers and trolls:

• Sheep
• Sheeple
• Pharma
• Shill
• Die
• Psychopath
• Clown
• Various curse words
• The clown emoji

In Instagram, go to “Settings and privacy —> Hidden Words” for options on hiding offensive comments and messages and for managing custom words and phrases that should be automatically hidden.

On Facebook, go to “Professional dashboard —> Moderation Assist,” where you can add or edit criteria to automatically hide comments on your Facebook page. In addition to hiding comments with certain keywords, you can hide comments from new accounts, accounts without profile photos, or accounts with no friends or followers.

On TikTok, click the three-line menu icon in the upper right, and choose “Privacy —> Comments —> Filter keywords.”

On the platform formerly known as Twitter, go to “Settings and privacy —> Privacy and safety —> Mute and block —> Muted words.”

On YouTube, under “Manage your community & comments,” select “Learn about comment settings.”

Dr. Baldwin did not discourage doctors from posting about controversial topics, but she said it’s important to know what they are so that you can be prepared for the possibility that a post about one of these topics could lead to online harassment. These hot button topics include vaccines, firearm safety, gender-affirming care, reproductive choice, safe sleep/bedsharing, breastfeeding, and COVID masks.

If you do post on one of these and suspect it could result in harassment, Dr. Baldwin recommends turning on your notifications so you know when attacks begin, alerting your office and call center staff if you think they might receive calls, and, when possible, post your content at a time when you’re more likely to be able to monitor the post. She acknowledged that this last tip isn’t always relevant since attacks can take a few days to start or gain steam.
 

Defending yourself in an attack

Even after taking all these precautions, it’s not possible to altogether prevent an attack from happening, so Dr. Baldwin provided suggestions on what to do if one occurs, starting with taking a deep breath.

“If you are attacked, first of all, please remain calm, which is a lot easier said than done,” she said. “But know that this too shall pass. These things do come to an end.”

She advises you to get help if you need it, enlisting friends or colleagues to help with moderation and banning/blocking. If necessary, alert your employer to the attack, as attackers may contact your employer. Some people may opt to turn off comments on their post, but doing so “is a really personal decision,” she said. It’s okay to turn off comments if you don’t have the bandwidth or help to deal with them.

However, Dr. Baldwin said she never turns off comments because she wants to be able to ban and block people to reduce the likelihood of a future attack from them, and each comment brings the post higher in the algorithm so that more people are able to see the original content. “So sometimes these things are actually a blessing in disguise,” she said.

If you do have comments turned on, take screenshots of the most egregious or threatening ones and then report them and ban/block them. The screenshots are evidence since blocking will remove the comment.

“Take breaks when you need to,” she said. “Don’t stay up all night” since there are only going to be more in the morning, and if you’re using keywords to help hide many of these comments, that will hide them from your followers while you’re away. She also advised monitoring your online reviews at doctor/practice review sites so you know whether you’re receiving spurious reviews that need to be removed.

Dr. Baldwin also addressed how to handle trolls, the people online who intentionally antagonize others with inflammatory, irrelevant, offensive, or otherwise disruptive comments or content. The No. 1 rule is not to engage – “Don’t feed the trolls” – but Dr. Baldwin acknowledged that she can find that difficult sometimes. So she uses kindness or humor to defuse them or calls them out on their inaccurate information and then thanks them for their engagement. Don’t forget that you are in charge of your own page, so any complaints about “censorship” or infringing “free speech” aren’t relevant.

If the comments are growing out of control and you’re unable to manage them, multiple social media platforms have options for limited interactions or who can comment on your page.

On Instagram under “Settings and privacy,” check out “Limited interactions,” “Comments —> Allow comments from,” and “Tags and mentions” to see ways you can limit who is able to comment, tag or mention your account. If you need a complete break, you can turn off commenting by clicking the three dots in the upper right corner of the post, or make your account temporarily private under “Settings and privacy —> Account privacy.”

On Facebook, click the three dots in the upper right corner of posts to select “Who can comment on your post?” Also, under “Settings —> Privacy —> Your Activity,” you can adjust who sees your future posts. Again, if things are out of control, you can temporarily deactivate your page under “Settings —> Privacy —> Facebook Page information.”

On TikTok, click the three lines in the upper right corner of your profile and select “Privacy —> Comments” to adjust who can comment and to filter comments. Again, you can make your account private under “Settings and privacy —> Privacy —> Private account.”

On the platform formerly known as Twitter, click the three dots in the upper right corner of the tweet to change who can reply to the tweet. If you select “Only people you mentioned,” then no one can reply if you did not mention anyone. You can control tagging under “Settings and privacy —> Privacy and safety —> Audience and tagging.”

If you or your practice receive false reviews on review sites, report the reviews and alert the rating site when you can. In the meantime, lock down your private social media accounts and ensure that no photos of your family are publicly available.
 

Social media self-care

Dr. Baldwin acknowledged that experiencing a social media attack can be intense and even frightening, but it’s rare and outweighed by the “hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of positive comments all the time.” She also reminded attendees that being on social media doesn’t mean being there all the time.

“Over time, my use of social media has certainly changed. It ebbs and flows,” she said. “There are times when I have a lot of bandwidth and I’m posting a lot, and then I actually have had some struggles with my own mental health, with some anxiety and mild depression, so I took a break from social media for a while. When I came back, I posted about my mental health struggles, and you wouldn’t believe how many people were so appreciative of that.”
 

Accurate information from a trusted source

Ultimately, Dr. Baldwin sees her work online as an extension of her work educating patients.

“This is where our patients are. They are in your office for maybe 10-15 minutes maybe once a year, but they are on these platforms every single day for hours,” she said. “They need to see this information from medical professionals because there are random people out there that are telling them [misinformation].”

Elizabeth Murray, DO, MBA, an emergency medicine pediatrician at Golisano Children’s Hospital at the University of Rochester, agreed that there’s substantial value in doctors sharing accurate information online.

“Disinformation and misinformation is rampant, and at the end of the day, we know the facts,” Dr. Murray said. “We know what parents want to hear and what they want to learn about, so we need to share that information and get the facts out there.”

Dr. Murray found the session very helpful because there’s so much to learn across different social media platforms and it can feel overwhelming if you aren’t familiar with the tools.

“Social media is always going to be here. We need to learn to live with all of these platforms,” Dr. Murray said. “That’s a skill set. We need to learn the skills and teach our kids the skill set. You never really know what you might put out there that, in your mind is innocent or very science-based, that for whatever reason somebody might take issue with. You might as well be ready because we’re all about prevention in pediatrics.”

There were no funders for the presentation. Dr. Baldwin and Dr. Murray had no disclosures.

WASHINGTON – The entire video clip is just 15 seconds — 15 seconds that went viral and temporarily upended the entire life and disrupted the medical practice of Nicole Baldwin, MD, a pediatrician in Cincinnati, Ohio, in January 2020. At the annual meeting of the American Academy of Pediatrics, Dr. Baldwin told attendees how her pro-vaccine TikTok video led a horde of anti-vaccine activists to swarm her social media profiles across multiple platforms, leave one-star reviews with false stories about her medical practice on various doctor review sites, and personally threaten her.

The initial response to the video was positive, with 50,000 views in the first 24 hours after the video was posted and more than 1.5 million views the next day. But 2 days after the video was posted, an organized attack that originated on Facebook required Dr. Baldwin to enlist the help of 16 volunteers, working 24/7 for a week, to help ban and block more than 6,000 users on Facebook, Instagram, and TikTok. Just 4 days after she’d posted the video, Dr. Baldwin was reporting personal threats to the police and had begun contacting sites such as Yelp, Google, Healthgrades, Vitals, RateMDs, and WebMD so they could start removing false reviews about her practice.

Today, years after those 2 exhausting, intense weeks of attacks, Dr. Baldwin has found two silver linings in the experience: More people have found her profiles, allowing her to share evidence-based information with an even wider audience, and she can now help other physicians protect themselves and reduce the risk of similar attacks, or at least know how to respond to them if they occur. Dr. Baldwin shared a wealth of tips and resources during her lecture to help pediatricians prepare ahead for the possibility that they will be targeted next, whether the issue is vaccines or another topic.
 

Online risks and benefits

A Pew survey of U.S. adults in September 2020 found that 41% have personally experienced online harassment, including a quarter of Americans who have experienced severe harassment. More than half of respondents said online harassment and bullying is a major problem – and that was a poll of the entire population, not even just physicians and scientists.

“Now, these numbers would be higher,” Dr. Baldwin said. “A lot has changed in the past 3 years, and the landscape is very different.”

The pandemic contributed to those changes to the landscape, including an increase in harassment of doctors and researchers. A June 2023 study revealed that two-thirds of 359 respondents in an online survey reported harassment on social media, a substantial number even after accounting for selection bias in the individuals who chose to respond to the survey. Although most of the attacks (88%) resulted from the respondent’s advocacy online, nearly half the attacks (45%) were gender based, 27% were based on race/ethnicity, and 13% were based on sexual orientation.

While hateful comments are likely the most common type of online harassment, other types can involve sharing or tagging your profile, creating fake profiles to misrepresent you, fake reviews of your practice, harassing phone calls and hate mail at your office, and doxxing, in which someone online widely shares your personal address, phone number, email, or other contact information.

Despite the risks of all these forms of harassment, Dr. Baldwin emphasized the value of doctors having a social media presence given how much misinformation thrives online. For example, a recent report from the Kaiser Family Foundation revealed how many people weren’t sure whether certain health misinformation claims were true or false. Barely a third of people were sure that COVID-19 vaccines had not caused thousands of deaths in healthy people, and only 22% of people were sure that ivermectin is not an effective treatment for COVID.

“There is so much that we need to be doing and working in these spaces to put evidence-based content out there so that people are not finding all of this crap from everybody else,” Dr. Baldwin said. Having an online presence is particularly important given that the public still has high levels of trust in their doctors, she added.

“They trust their physician, and you may not be their physician online, but I will tell you from experience, when you build a community of followers, you become that trusted source of information for them, and it is so important,” Dr. Baldwin said. “There is room for everybody in this space, and we need all of you.”
 

Proactive steps for protection

Dr. Baldwin then went through the details of what people should do now to make things easier in the event of an attack later. “The best defense is a good offense,” Dr. Baldwin said, “so make sure all of your accounts are secure.”

She recommended the following steps:

• Use two-factor authentication for all of your logins.
• Use strong, unique passwords for all of your logins.
• Use strong privacy settings on all of your private social media profiles, such as making sure photos are not visible on your personal Facebook account.
• Claim your Google profile and Yelp business profile.
• Claim your doctor and/or business profile on all of the medical review sites where you have one, including Google, Healthgrades, Vitals, RateMDs, and WebMD.

For doctors who are attacked specifically because of pro-vaccine advocacy, Dr. Baldwin recommended contacting Shots Heard Round The World, a site that was created by a physician whose practice was attacked by anti-vaccine activists. The site also has a toolkit that anyone can download for tips on preparing ahead for possible attacks and what to do if you are attacked.

Dr. Baldwin then reviewed how to set up different social media profiles to automatically hide certain comments, including comments with words commonly used by online harassers and trolls:

• Sheep
• Sheeple
• Pharma
• Shill
• Die
• Psychopath
• Clown
• Various curse words
• The clown emoji

In Instagram, go to “Settings and privacy —> Hidden Words” for options on hiding offensive comments and messages and for managing custom words and phrases that should be automatically hidden.

On Facebook, go to “Professional dashboard —> Moderation Assist,” where you can add or edit criteria to automatically hide comments on your Facebook page. In addition to hiding comments with certain keywords, you can hide comments from new accounts, accounts without profile photos, or accounts with no friends or followers.

On TikTok, click the three-line menu icon in the upper right, and choose “Privacy —> Comments —> Filter keywords.”

On the platform formerly known as Twitter, go to “Settings and privacy —> Privacy and safety —> Mute and block —> Muted words.”

On YouTube, under “Manage your community & comments,” select “Learn about comment settings.”

Dr. Baldwin did not discourage doctors from posting about controversial topics, but she said it’s important to know what they are so that you can be prepared for the possibility that a post about one of these topics could lead to online harassment. These hot button topics include vaccines, firearm safety, gender-affirming care, reproductive choice, safe sleep/bedsharing, breastfeeding, and COVID masks.

If you do post on one of these and suspect it could result in harassment, Dr. Baldwin recommends turning on your notifications so you know when attacks begin, alerting your office and call center staff if you think they might receive calls, and, when possible, post your content at a time when you’re more likely to be able to monitor the post. She acknowledged that this last tip isn’t always relevant since attacks can take a few days to start or gain steam.
 

Defending yourself in an attack

Even after taking all these precautions, it’s not possible to altogether prevent an attack from happening, so Dr. Baldwin provided suggestions on what to do if one occurs, starting with taking a deep breath.

“If you are attacked, first of all, please remain calm, which is a lot easier said than done,” she said. “But know that this too shall pass. These things do come to an end.”

She advises you to get help if you need it, enlisting friends or colleagues to help with moderation and banning/blocking. If necessary, alert your employer to the attack, as attackers may contact your employer. Some people may opt to turn off comments on their post, but doing so “is a really personal decision,” she said. It’s okay to turn off comments if you don’t have the bandwidth or help to deal with them.

However, Dr. Baldwin said she never turns off comments because she wants to be able to ban and block people to reduce the likelihood of a future attack from them, and each comment brings the post higher in the algorithm so that more people are able to see the original content. “So sometimes these things are actually a blessing in disguise,” she said.

If you do have comments turned on, take screenshots of the most egregious or threatening ones and then report them and ban/block them. The screenshots are evidence since blocking will remove the comment.

“Take breaks when you need to,” she said. “Don’t stay up all night” since there are only going to be more in the morning, and if you’re using keywords to help hide many of these comments, that will hide them from your followers while you’re away. She also advised monitoring your online reviews at doctor/practice review sites so you know whether you’re receiving spurious reviews that need to be removed.

Dr. Baldwin also addressed how to handle trolls, the people online who intentionally antagonize others with inflammatory, irrelevant, offensive, or otherwise disruptive comments or content. The No. 1 rule is not to engage – “Don’t feed the trolls” – but Dr. Baldwin acknowledged that she can find that difficult sometimes. So she uses kindness or humor to defuse them or calls them out on their inaccurate information and then thanks them for their engagement. Don’t forget that you are in charge of your own page, so any complaints about “censorship” or infringing “free speech” aren’t relevant.

If the comments are growing out of control and you’re unable to manage them, multiple social media platforms have options for limited interactions or who can comment on your page.

On Instagram under “Settings and privacy,” check out “Limited interactions,” “Comments —> Allow comments from,” and “Tags and mentions” to see ways you can limit who is able to comment, tag or mention your account. If you need a complete break, you can turn off commenting by clicking the three dots in the upper right corner of the post, or make your account temporarily private under “Settings and privacy —> Account privacy.”

On Facebook, click the three dots in the upper right corner of posts to select “Who can comment on your post?” Also, under “Settings —> Privacy —> Your Activity,” you can adjust who sees your future posts. Again, if things are out of control, you can temporarily deactivate your page under “Settings —> Privacy —> Facebook Page information.”

On TikTok, click the three lines in the upper right corner of your profile and select “Privacy —> Comments” to adjust who can comment and to filter comments. Again, you can make your account private under “Settings and privacy —> Privacy —> Private account.”

On the platform formerly known as Twitter, click the three dots in the upper right corner of the tweet to change who can reply to the tweet. If you select “Only people you mentioned,” then no one can reply if you did not mention anyone. You can control tagging under “Settings and privacy —> Privacy and safety —> Audience and tagging.”

If you or your practice receive false reviews on review sites, report the reviews and alert the rating site when you can. In the meantime, lock down your private social media accounts and ensure that no photos of your family are publicly available.
 

Social media self-care

Dr. Baldwin acknowledged that experiencing a social media attack can be intense and even frightening, but it’s rare and outweighed by the “hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of positive comments all the time.” She also reminded attendees that being on social media doesn’t mean being there all the time.

“Over time, my use of social media has certainly changed. It ebbs and flows,” she said. “There are times when I have a lot of bandwidth and I’m posting a lot, and then I actually have had some struggles with my own mental health, with some anxiety and mild depression, so I took a break from social media for a while. When I came back, I posted about my mental health struggles, and you wouldn’t believe how many people were so appreciative of that.”
 

Accurate information from a trusted source

Ultimately, Dr. Baldwin sees her work online as an extension of her work educating patients.

“This is where our patients are. They are in your office for maybe 10-15 minutes maybe once a year, but they are on these platforms every single day for hours,” she said. “They need to see this information from medical professionals because there are random people out there that are telling them [misinformation].”

Elizabeth Murray, DO, MBA, an emergency medicine pediatrician at Golisano Children’s Hospital at the University of Rochester, agreed that there’s substantial value in doctors sharing accurate information online.

“Disinformation and misinformation is rampant, and at the end of the day, we know the facts,” Dr. Murray said. “We know what parents want to hear and what they want to learn about, so we need to share that information and get the facts out there.”

Dr. Murray found the session very helpful because there’s so much to learn across different social media platforms and it can feel overwhelming if you aren’t familiar with the tools.

“Social media is always going to be here. We need to learn to live with all of these platforms,” Dr. Murray said. “That’s a skill set. We need to learn the skills and teach our kids the skill set. You never really know what you might put out there that, in your mind is innocent or very science-based, that for whatever reason somebody might take issue with. You might as well be ready because we’re all about prevention in pediatrics.”

There were no funders for the presentation. Dr. Baldwin and Dr. Murray had no disclosures.

WASHINGTON – The entire video clip is just 15 seconds — 15 seconds that went viral and temporarily upended the entire life and disrupted the medical practice of Nicole Baldwin, MD, a pediatrician in Cincinnati, Ohio, in January 2020. At the annual meeting of the American Academy of Pediatrics, Dr. Baldwin told attendees how her pro-vaccine TikTok video led a horde of anti-vaccine activists to swarm her social media profiles across multiple platforms, leave one-star reviews with false stories about her medical practice on various doctor review sites, and personally threaten her.

The initial response to the video was positive, with 50,000 views in the first 24 hours after the video was posted and more than 1.5 million views the next day. But 2 days after the video was posted, an organized attack that originated on Facebook required Dr. Baldwin to enlist the help of 16 volunteers, working 24/7 for a week, to help ban and block more than 6,000 users on Facebook, Instagram, and TikTok. Just 4 days after she’d posted the video, Dr. Baldwin was reporting personal threats to the police and had begun contacting sites such as Yelp, Google, Healthgrades, Vitals, RateMDs, and WebMD so they could start removing false reviews about her practice.

Today, years after those 2 exhausting, intense weeks of attacks, Dr. Baldwin has found two silver linings in the experience: More people have found her profiles, allowing her to share evidence-based information with an even wider audience, and she can now help other physicians protect themselves and reduce the risk of similar attacks, or at least know how to respond to them if they occur. Dr. Baldwin shared a wealth of tips and resources during her lecture to help pediatricians prepare ahead for the possibility that they will be targeted next, whether the issue is vaccines or another topic.
 

Online risks and benefits

A Pew survey of U.S. adults in September 2020 found that 41% have personally experienced online harassment, including a quarter of Americans who have experienced severe harassment. More than half of respondents said online harassment and bullying is a major problem – and that was a poll of the entire population, not even just physicians and scientists.

“Now, these numbers would be higher,” Dr. Baldwin said. “A lot has changed in the past 3 years, and the landscape is very different.”

The pandemic contributed to those changes to the landscape, including an increase in harassment of doctors and researchers. A June 2023 study revealed that two-thirds of 359 respondents in an online survey reported harassment on social media, a substantial number even after accounting for selection bias in the individuals who chose to respond to the survey. Although most of the attacks (88%) resulted from the respondent’s advocacy online, nearly half the attacks (45%) were gender based, 27% were based on race/ethnicity, and 13% were based on sexual orientation.

While hateful comments are likely the most common type of online harassment, other types can involve sharing or tagging your profile, creating fake profiles to misrepresent you, fake reviews of your practice, harassing phone calls and hate mail at your office, and doxxing, in which someone online widely shares your personal address, phone number, email, or other contact information.

Despite the risks of all these forms of harassment, Dr. Baldwin emphasized the value of doctors having a social media presence given how much misinformation thrives online. For example, a recent report from the Kaiser Family Foundation revealed how many people weren’t sure whether certain health misinformation claims were true or false. Barely a third of people were sure that COVID-19 vaccines had not caused thousands of deaths in healthy people, and only 22% of people were sure that ivermectin is not an effective treatment for COVID.

“There is so much that we need to be doing and working in these spaces to put evidence-based content out there so that people are not finding all of this crap from everybody else,” Dr. Baldwin said. Having an online presence is particularly important given that the public still has high levels of trust in their doctors, she added.

“They trust their physician, and you may not be their physician online, but I will tell you from experience, when you build a community of followers, you become that trusted source of information for them, and it is so important,” Dr. Baldwin said. “There is room for everybody in this space, and we need all of you.”
 

Proactive steps for protection

Dr. Baldwin then went through the details of what people should do now to make things easier in the event of an attack later. “The best defense is a good offense,” Dr. Baldwin said, “so make sure all of your accounts are secure.”

She recommended the following steps:

• Use two-factor authentication for all of your logins.
• Use strong, unique passwords for all of your logins.
• Use strong privacy settings on all of your private social media profiles, such as making sure photos are not visible on your personal Facebook account.
• Claim your Google profile and Yelp business profile.
• Claim your doctor and/or business profile on all of the medical review sites where you have one, including Google, Healthgrades, Vitals, RateMDs, and WebMD.

For doctors who are attacked specifically because of pro-vaccine advocacy, Dr. Baldwin recommended contacting Shots Heard Round The World, a site that was created by a physician whose practice was attacked by anti-vaccine activists. The site also has a toolkit that anyone can download for tips on preparing ahead for possible attacks and what to do if you are attacked.

Dr. Baldwin then reviewed how to set up different social media profiles to automatically hide certain comments, including comments with words commonly used by online harassers and trolls:

• Sheep
• Sheeple
• Pharma
• Shill
• Die
• Psychopath
• Clown
• Various curse words
• The clown emoji

In Instagram, go to “Settings and privacy —> Hidden Words” for options on hiding offensive comments and messages and for managing custom words and phrases that should be automatically hidden.

On Facebook, go to “Professional dashboard —> Moderation Assist,” where you can add or edit criteria to automatically hide comments on your Facebook page. In addition to hiding comments with certain keywords, you can hide comments from new accounts, accounts without profile photos, or accounts with no friends or followers.

On TikTok, click the three-line menu icon in the upper right, and choose “Privacy —> Comments —> Filter keywords.”

On the platform formerly known as Twitter, go to “Settings and privacy —> Privacy and safety —> Mute and block —> Muted words.”

On YouTube, under “Manage your community & comments,” select “Learn about comment settings.”

Dr. Baldwin did not discourage doctors from posting about controversial topics, but she said it’s important to know what they are so that you can be prepared for the possibility that a post about one of these topics could lead to online harassment. These hot button topics include vaccines, firearm safety, gender-affirming care, reproductive choice, safe sleep/bedsharing, breastfeeding, and COVID masks.

If you do post on one of these and suspect it could result in harassment, Dr. Baldwin recommends turning on your notifications so you know when attacks begin, alerting your office and call center staff if you think they might receive calls, and, when possible, post your content at a time when you’re more likely to be able to monitor the post. She acknowledged that this last tip isn’t always relevant since attacks can take a few days to start or gain steam.
 

Defending yourself in an attack

Even after taking all these precautions, it’s not possible to altogether prevent an attack from happening, so Dr. Baldwin provided suggestions on what to do if one occurs, starting with taking a deep breath.

“If you are attacked, first of all, please remain calm, which is a lot easier said than done,” she said. “But know that this too shall pass. These things do come to an end.”

She advises you to get help if you need it, enlisting friends or colleagues to help with moderation and banning/blocking. If necessary, alert your employer to the attack, as attackers may contact your employer. Some people may opt to turn off comments on their post, but doing so “is a really personal decision,” she said. It’s okay to turn off comments if you don’t have the bandwidth or help to deal with them.

However, Dr. Baldwin said she never turns off comments because she wants to be able to ban and block people to reduce the likelihood of a future attack from them, and each comment brings the post higher in the algorithm so that more people are able to see the original content. “So sometimes these things are actually a blessing in disguise,” she said.

If you do have comments turned on, take screenshots of the most egregious or threatening ones and then report them and ban/block them. The screenshots are evidence since blocking will remove the comment.

“Take breaks when you need to,” she said. “Don’t stay up all night” since there are only going to be more in the morning, and if you’re using keywords to help hide many of these comments, that will hide them from your followers while you’re away. She also advised monitoring your online reviews at doctor/practice review sites so you know whether you’re receiving spurious reviews that need to be removed.

Dr. Baldwin also addressed how to handle trolls, the people online who intentionally antagonize others with inflammatory, irrelevant, offensive, or otherwise disruptive comments or content. The No. 1 rule is not to engage – “Don’t feed the trolls” – but Dr. Baldwin acknowledged that she can find that difficult sometimes. So she uses kindness or humor to defuse them or calls them out on their inaccurate information and then thanks them for their engagement. Don’t forget that you are in charge of your own page, so any complaints about “censorship” or infringing “free speech” aren’t relevant.

If the comments are growing out of control and you’re unable to manage them, multiple social media platforms have options for limited interactions or who can comment on your page.

On Instagram under “Settings and privacy,” check out “Limited interactions,” “Comments —> Allow comments from,” and “Tags and mentions” to see ways you can limit who is able to comment, tag or mention your account. If you need a complete break, you can turn off commenting by clicking the three dots in the upper right corner of the post, or make your account temporarily private under “Settings and privacy —> Account privacy.”

On Facebook, click the three dots in the upper right corner of posts to select “Who can comment on your post?” Also, under “Settings —> Privacy —> Your Activity,” you can adjust who sees your future posts. Again, if things are out of control, you can temporarily deactivate your page under “Settings —> Privacy —> Facebook Page information.”

On TikTok, click the three lines in the upper right corner of your profile and select “Privacy —> Comments” to adjust who can comment and to filter comments. Again, you can make your account private under “Settings and privacy —> Privacy —> Private account.”

On the platform formerly known as Twitter, click the three dots in the upper right corner of the tweet to change who can reply to the tweet. If you select “Only people you mentioned,” then no one can reply if you did not mention anyone. You can control tagging under “Settings and privacy —> Privacy and safety —> Audience and tagging.”

If you or your practice receive false reviews on review sites, report the reviews and alert the rating site when you can. In the meantime, lock down your private social media accounts and ensure that no photos of your family are publicly available.
 

Social media self-care

Dr. Baldwin acknowledged that experiencing a social media attack can be intense and even frightening, but it’s rare and outweighed by the “hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of positive comments all the time.” She also reminded attendees that being on social media doesn’t mean being there all the time.

“Over time, my use of social media has certainly changed. It ebbs and flows,” she said. “There are times when I have a lot of bandwidth and I’m posting a lot, and then I actually have had some struggles with my own mental health, with some anxiety and mild depression, so I took a break from social media for a while. When I came back, I posted about my mental health struggles, and you wouldn’t believe how many people were so appreciative of that.”
 

Accurate information from a trusted source

Ultimately, Dr. Baldwin sees her work online as an extension of her work educating patients.

“This is where our patients are. They are in your office for maybe 10-15 minutes maybe once a year, but they are on these platforms every single day for hours,” she said. “They need to see this information from medical professionals because there are random people out there that are telling them [misinformation].”

Elizabeth Murray, DO, MBA, an emergency medicine pediatrician at Golisano Children’s Hospital at the University of Rochester, agreed that there’s substantial value in doctors sharing accurate information online.

“Disinformation and misinformation is rampant, and at the end of the day, we know the facts,” Dr. Murray said. “We know what parents want to hear and what they want to learn about, so we need to share that information and get the facts out there.”

Dr. Murray found the session very helpful because there’s so much to learn across different social media platforms and it can feel overwhelming if you aren’t familiar with the tools.

“Social media is always going to be here. We need to learn to live with all of these platforms,” Dr. Murray said. “That’s a skill set. We need to learn the skills and teach our kids the skill set. You never really know what you might put out there that, in your mind is innocent or very science-based, that for whatever reason somebody might take issue with. You might as well be ready because we’re all about prevention in pediatrics.”

There were no funders for the presentation. Dr. Baldwin and Dr. Murray had no disclosures.

Which conditions are caused by infection? Though it may seem like an amateur concern in the era of advanced microscopy, some culprits evade conventional methods of detection. Large medical databases hold the power to unlock answers. 

A recent study from Sweden and Denmark meticulously traced the lives and medical histories of nearly one million men and women in those countries who had received blood transfusions over nearly five decades. Some of these patients later experienced brain bleeds. The inescapable question: Could a virus found in some donor blood have caused the hemorrhages?

Traditionally, brain bleeds have been thought to strike at random. But the new study, published in JAMA, points toward an infection that causes or, at the very least, is linked to the condition. The researchers used a large databank to make the discovery. 

“As health data becomes more available and easier to analyze, we’ll see all kinds of cases like this,” said Jingcheng Zhao, MD, of the clinical epidemiology division of Sweden’s Karolinska Institutet in Solna and lead author of the study.

Scientists say the field of medical research is on the cusp of a revolution as immense health databases guide discovery and improve clinical care. 

“If you can aggregate data, you have the statistical power to identify associations,” said David R. Crosslin, PhD, professor in the division of biomedical informatics and genomics at Tulane University in New Orleans. “It opens up the world for understanding diseases.”

With access to the large database, Dr. Zhao and his team found that some blood donors later experienced brain bleeds. And it turned out that the recipients of blood from those same donors carried the highest risk of experiencing a brain bleed later in life. Meanwhile, patients whose donors remained bleed-free had the lowest risk.
 

Not so fast in the United States

In Nordic countries, all hospitals, clinics, and pharmacies report data on diagnoses and health care visits to the government, tracking that began with paper and pen in the 1960s. But the United States health care system is too fragmented to replicate such efforts, with several brands of electronic medical records operating across different systems. Data sharing across institutions is minimal. 

Most comparable health data in the United States comes from reimbursement information collected by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services on government-sponsored insurance programs.

“We would need all the health care systems in the country to operate within the same IT system or use the same data model,” said Euan Ashley, MD, PhD, professor of genomics at Stanford (Calif.) University. “It’s an exciting prospect. But I think [the United States] is one of the last countries where it’ll happen.”

States, meanwhile, collect health data on specific areas like sexually transmitted infection cases and rates. Other states have registries, like the Connecticut Tumor Registry, which was established in 1941 and is the oldest population-based cancer registry in the world.

But all of these efforts are ad hoc, and no equivalent exists for heart disease and other conditions.

Health data companies have recently entered the U.S. data industry mainly through partnerships with health systems and insurance companies, using deidentified information from patient charts.

The large databases have yielded important findings that randomized clinical trials simply cannot, according to Dr. Ashley.

For instance, a study found that a heavily-lauded immunotherapy treatment did not provide meaningful outcomes for patients aged 75 years or older, but it did for younger patients.

This sort of analysis might enable clinicians to administer treatments based on how effective they are for patients with particular demographics, according to Cary Gross, MD, professor at Yale University in New Haven, Conn.

“From a bedside standpoint, these large databases can identify who benefits from what,” Dr. Gross said. “Precision medicine is not just about genetic tailoring.” These large datasets also provide insight into genetic and environmental variables that contribute to disease. 

For instance, the UK Biobank has more than 500,000 participants paired with their medical records and scans of their body and brain. Researchers perform cognitive tests on participants and extract DNA from blood samples over their lifetime, allowing examination of interactions between risk factors. 

A similar but much smaller-scale effort underway in the United States, called the All of Us Research Program, has enrolled more than 650,000 people, less than one-third the size of the UK Biobank by relative populations. The goal of the program is to provide insights into prevention and treatment of chronic disease among a diverse set of at least one million participants. The database includes information on sexual orientation, which is a fairly new datapoint collected by researchers in an effort to study health outcomes and inequities among the LGBTQ+ community.

Dr. Crosslin and his colleagues are writing a grant proposal to use the All of Us database to identify genetic risks for preeclampsia. People with certain genetic profiles may be predisposed to the life-threatening condition, and researchers may discover that lifestyle changes could decrease risk, Dr. Crosslin said. 
 

Changes in the United States

The COVID-19 pandemic exposed the lack of centralized data in the United States because a majority of research on the virus has been conducted abroad in countries with national health care systems and these large databases. 

The U.S. gap spurred a group of researchers to create the National Institutes of Health–funded National COVID Cohort Collaborative (N3C), a project that gathers medical records from millions of patients across health systems and provides access to research teams investigating a wide spectrum of topics, such as optimal timing for ventilator use.

But until government or private health systems develop a way to share and regulate health data ethically and efficiently, significant limits will persist on what large-scale databases can do, Dr. Gross said. 

“At the federal level, we need to ensure this health information is made available for public health researchers so we don’t create these private fiefdoms of data,” Dr. Gross said. “Things have to be transparent. I think our country needs to take a step back and think about what we’re doing with our health data and how we can make sure it’s being managed ethically.”

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Which conditions are caused by infection? Though it may seem like an amateur concern in the era of advanced microscopy, some culprits evade conventional methods of detection. Large medical databases hold the power to unlock answers. 

A recent study from Sweden and Denmark meticulously traced the lives and medical histories of nearly one million men and women in those countries who had received blood transfusions over nearly five decades. Some of these patients later experienced brain bleeds. The inescapable question: Could a virus found in some donor blood have caused the hemorrhages?

Traditionally, brain bleeds have been thought to strike at random. But the new study, published in JAMA, points toward an infection that causes or, at the very least, is linked to the condition. The researchers used a large databank to make the discovery. 

“As health data becomes more available and easier to analyze, we’ll see all kinds of cases like this,” said Jingcheng Zhao, MD, of the clinical epidemiology division of Sweden’s Karolinska Institutet in Solna and lead author of the study.

Scientists say the field of medical research is on the cusp of a revolution as immense health databases guide discovery and improve clinical care. 

“If you can aggregate data, you have the statistical power to identify associations,” said David R. Crosslin, PhD, professor in the division of biomedical informatics and genomics at Tulane University in New Orleans. “It opens up the world for understanding diseases.”

With access to the large database, Dr. Zhao and his team found that some blood donors later experienced brain bleeds. And it turned out that the recipients of blood from those same donors carried the highest risk of experiencing a brain bleed later in life. Meanwhile, patients whose donors remained bleed-free had the lowest risk.
 

Not so fast in the United States

In Nordic countries, all hospitals, clinics, and pharmacies report data on diagnoses and health care visits to the government, tracking that began with paper and pen in the 1960s. But the United States health care system is too fragmented to replicate such efforts, with several brands of electronic medical records operating across different systems. Data sharing across institutions is minimal. 

Most comparable health data in the United States comes from reimbursement information collected by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services on government-sponsored insurance programs.

“We would need all the health care systems in the country to operate within the same IT system or use the same data model,” said Euan Ashley, MD, PhD, professor of genomics at Stanford (Calif.) University. “It’s an exciting prospect. But I think [the United States] is one of the last countries where it’ll happen.”

States, meanwhile, collect health data on specific areas like sexually transmitted infection cases and rates. Other states have registries, like the Connecticut Tumor Registry, which was established in 1941 and is the oldest population-based cancer registry in the world.

But all of these efforts are ad hoc, and no equivalent exists for heart disease and other conditions.

Health data companies have recently entered the U.S. data industry mainly through partnerships with health systems and insurance companies, using deidentified information from patient charts.

The large databases have yielded important findings that randomized clinical trials simply cannot, according to Dr. Ashley.

For instance, a study found that a heavily-lauded immunotherapy treatment did not provide meaningful outcomes for patients aged 75 years or older, but it did for younger patients.

This sort of analysis might enable clinicians to administer treatments based on how effective they are for patients with particular demographics, according to Cary Gross, MD, professor at Yale University in New Haven, Conn.

“From a bedside standpoint, these large databases can identify who benefits from what,” Dr. Gross said. “Precision medicine is not just about genetic tailoring.” These large datasets also provide insight into genetic and environmental variables that contribute to disease. 

For instance, the UK Biobank has more than 500,000 participants paired with their medical records and scans of their body and brain. Researchers perform cognitive tests on participants and extract DNA from blood samples over their lifetime, allowing examination of interactions between risk factors. 

A similar but much smaller-scale effort underway in the United States, called the All of Us Research Program, has enrolled more than 650,000 people, less than one-third the size of the UK Biobank by relative populations. The goal of the program is to provide insights into prevention and treatment of chronic disease among a diverse set of at least one million participants. The database includes information on sexual orientation, which is a fairly new datapoint collected by researchers in an effort to study health outcomes and inequities among the LGBTQ+ community.

Dr. Crosslin and his colleagues are writing a grant proposal to use the All of Us database to identify genetic risks for preeclampsia. People with certain genetic profiles may be predisposed to the life-threatening condition, and researchers may discover that lifestyle changes could decrease risk, Dr. Crosslin said. 
 

Changes in the United States

The COVID-19 pandemic exposed the lack of centralized data in the United States because a majority of research on the virus has been conducted abroad in countries with national health care systems and these large databases. 

The U.S. gap spurred a group of researchers to create the National Institutes of Health–funded National COVID Cohort Collaborative (N3C), a project that gathers medical records from millions of patients across health systems and provides access to research teams investigating a wide spectrum of topics, such as optimal timing for ventilator use.

But until government or private health systems develop a way to share and regulate health data ethically and efficiently, significant limits will persist on what large-scale databases can do, Dr. Gross said. 

“At the federal level, we need to ensure this health information is made available for public health researchers so we don’t create these private fiefdoms of data,” Dr. Gross said. “Things have to be transparent. I think our country needs to take a step back and think about what we’re doing with our health data and how we can make sure it’s being managed ethically.”

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Which conditions are caused by infection? Though it may seem like an amateur concern in the era of advanced microscopy, some culprits evade conventional methods of detection. Large medical databases hold the power to unlock answers. 

A recent study from Sweden and Denmark meticulously traced the lives and medical histories of nearly one million men and women in those countries who had received blood transfusions over nearly five decades. Some of these patients later experienced brain bleeds. The inescapable question: Could a virus found in some donor blood have caused the hemorrhages?

Traditionally, brain bleeds have been thought to strike at random. But the new study, published in JAMA, points toward an infection that causes or, at the very least, is linked to the condition. The researchers used a large databank to make the discovery. 

“As health data becomes more available and easier to analyze, we’ll see all kinds of cases like this,” said Jingcheng Zhao, MD, of the clinical epidemiology division of Sweden’s Karolinska Institutet in Solna and lead author of the study.

Scientists say the field of medical research is on the cusp of a revolution as immense health databases guide discovery and improve clinical care. 

“If you can aggregate data, you have the statistical power to identify associations,” said David R. Crosslin, PhD, professor in the division of biomedical informatics and genomics at Tulane University in New Orleans. “It opens up the world for understanding diseases.”

With access to the large database, Dr. Zhao and his team found that some blood donors later experienced brain bleeds. And it turned out that the recipients of blood from those same donors carried the highest risk of experiencing a brain bleed later in life. Meanwhile, patients whose donors remained bleed-free had the lowest risk.
 

Not so fast in the United States

In Nordic countries, all hospitals, clinics, and pharmacies report data on diagnoses and health care visits to the government, tracking that began with paper and pen in the 1960s. But the United States health care system is too fragmented to replicate such efforts, with several brands of electronic medical records operating across different systems. Data sharing across institutions is minimal. 

Most comparable health data in the United States comes from reimbursement information collected by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services on government-sponsored insurance programs.

“We would need all the health care systems in the country to operate within the same IT system or use the same data model,” said Euan Ashley, MD, PhD, professor of genomics at Stanford (Calif.) University. “It’s an exciting prospect. But I think [the United States] is one of the last countries where it’ll happen.”

States, meanwhile, collect health data on specific areas like sexually transmitted infection cases and rates. Other states have registries, like the Connecticut Tumor Registry, which was established in 1941 and is the oldest population-based cancer registry in the world.

But all of these efforts are ad hoc, and no equivalent exists for heart disease and other conditions.

Health data companies have recently entered the U.S. data industry mainly through partnerships with health systems and insurance companies, using deidentified information from patient charts.

The large databases have yielded important findings that randomized clinical trials simply cannot, according to Dr. Ashley.

For instance, a study found that a heavily-lauded immunotherapy treatment did not provide meaningful outcomes for patients aged 75 years or older, but it did for younger patients.

This sort of analysis might enable clinicians to administer treatments based on how effective they are for patients with particular demographics, according to Cary Gross, MD, professor at Yale University in New Haven, Conn.

“From a bedside standpoint, these large databases can identify who benefits from what,” Dr. Gross said. “Precision medicine is not just about genetic tailoring.” These large datasets also provide insight into genetic and environmental variables that contribute to disease. 

For instance, the UK Biobank has more than 500,000 participants paired with their medical records and scans of their body and brain. Researchers perform cognitive tests on participants and extract DNA from blood samples over their lifetime, allowing examination of interactions between risk factors. 

A similar but much smaller-scale effort underway in the United States, called the All of Us Research Program, has enrolled more than 650,000 people, less than one-third the size of the UK Biobank by relative populations. The goal of the program is to provide insights into prevention and treatment of chronic disease among a diverse set of at least one million participants. The database includes information on sexual orientation, which is a fairly new datapoint collected by researchers in an effort to study health outcomes and inequities among the LGBTQ+ community.

Dr. Crosslin and his colleagues are writing a grant proposal to use the All of Us database to identify genetic risks for preeclampsia. People with certain genetic profiles may be predisposed to the life-threatening condition, and researchers may discover that lifestyle changes could decrease risk, Dr. Crosslin said. 
 

Changes in the United States

The COVID-19 pandemic exposed the lack of centralized data in the United States because a majority of research on the virus has been conducted abroad in countries with national health care systems and these large databases. 

The U.S. gap spurred a group of researchers to create the National Institutes of Health–funded National COVID Cohort Collaborative (N3C), a project that gathers medical records from millions of patients across health systems and provides access to research teams investigating a wide spectrum of topics, such as optimal timing for ventilator use.

But until government or private health systems develop a way to share and regulate health data ethically and efficiently, significant limits will persist on what large-scale databases can do, Dr. Gross said. 

“At the federal level, we need to ensure this health information is made available for public health researchers so we don’t create these private fiefdoms of data,” Dr. Gross said. “Things have to be transparent. I think our country needs to take a step back and think about what we’re doing with our health data and how we can make sure it’s being managed ethically.”

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.